|
|
|
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Hi guys, This is a part of my thoughts, but I write it after reading many players’ feedback. Feel free to Download the PDF of the initial version (without update) here if you want a better layout and greater reading comfort : https://we.tl/t-lfSQ88wpj6I actually read every title of the 160 last pages of the forum, tons of feedback and more than half the compendium to compile the most the usual suggestions and the most usual feedbacks about combats. Of course, I also read the surveys and lots of polls/threads on reddit and so on… This thread was build arround those feedbacks.Whatever we like them or not, combats are an important part of the game and they deserve a great attention. This thread is an attempt of suggestion to improve combats in Baldur’s Gate 3. I hope it could suit the most of us. It should be okay to everyone that accept what BG3 claim to be: a D&D experience in a Larian setting. D&D combats are all about choices, consequences and resources management.
Larian’s custom rules meant to offer us more choices and should definitely be a part of the game. But on the other hand, in the actual state of the game these additional or reworked mechanics determine what combats have to look like in Baldur’s Gate 3.Keep in mind that this is a suggestion and not a definitive patchnote suggestion. The game is in EA and Larian probably has more surprise for us. Anyway, I think all this could increase a lot the tactical value of the game and the possibilities a great strategy TB video game should offer to its players. Larian and Baldur's gate 3 deserves the best.I just want to add that I’m here because this game is named Baldur’s Gate. I’m a player of BG but I’m also a player of DoS, of TW3, of Xcom, of Wasteland, of Civilization, of Total War, of Solasta, of …. I’m just a huge fan of video games who really care about BG3 and who really love RPG and many strategy TB games. I never played any D&D TT game, but I find the rules awesome. Feel free to help me improve this suggestion whatever you’re a D&D player, a video game player or another. Whatever our opinions, problems or feedback, our common goal is to improve Baldur’s Gate 3.
Just read the underlined sentences if you don’t want the details.
CHAPTER 0: INTRODUCTION
0.1 Advantages/ DisadvantagesWe already discused A LOT about advantages and disadvantages. There are great and very usefull. Having custom rules to increase our % to hit is necessary, but advantages are powerfull and very easy to grab. The easiests way are going higher for ranged or (jumping to) backstab with your melee characters. Open the spoiler to discover Isaac’s awesome message and to understand why the actual implementation of advantages / disadvantages is a real balance breaker in a D&D game.Summary: In the 5e ruleset, Advantage/Disadvantage is the most powerful impact on gameplay. This is true both from a mathematical standpoint and from a player/DM perspective. Because it is so powerful, all sources of Adv/Dis in 5e come at either a cost of resources or a potentially penalty to the user, to balance out the sheer power of the mechanic. Currently, BG 3 subverts this balance by providing always available sources of Adv/Dis in the form of Height and Backstab, both of which require nothing more than having your character in the correct location on the map (note: this is exacerbated by the Jump/Disengage/Stealth problem discussed elsewhere, but exists even if that is fixed). This makes the 5e sources of Adv/Dis nearly useless as they are all more costly or penalizing, thus invaliding literally dozens and dozens of class features and spells, completely ruining the balance of entire classes. Removing Height and Backstab based Adv/Dis will go a long way towards making the game far more balanced and play like a D&D game. Main Discussion: The Maths: - In 5e, in general, having Advantage is roughly equivalent of having +5 to your roll. Disadvantage is roughly equal to having -5 to your roll. This means if one character is rolling with Advantage, and the other character is rolling with Disadvantage, then there is the rough equivalent of +-10 between their rolls. Additionally, Advantage doubles the chance of rolling a critical hit, and makes critical failures much less likely (5% normally vs 0.25% with Advantage), vice versa for Disadvantage. Next, one of the core theories for game balance in 5e is called "Bounded Accuracy". This term means that players and NPCs generally have limits to how high they can boost their static modifiers to rolls. There is a 'bound' on just how 'accurate' a player can become. This was a huge shift in D&D when it was introduced. In prior editions of D&D, players could achieve truly insane modifiers to their to-hit, to the point where attack rolls were reaching into the 1d20+100 range, which just creates stupid arms races between monsters and players. By reducing how much a player can add to their to-hit, WotC (the publishers the D&D rules) made smaller bonuses much, MUCH more important. For example, Bless requires both a spell slot, concentration, and is limited to three targets, and only provides an average of +2.5, half of Advantage. Bounded Accuracy is why Adv/Dis is so impactful on gameplay. There are a few class abilities that can add a higher static modifier (such as a War Cleric's Channel Divinity that can add +10 to one single attack roll) but those are rare and always limited in amount. It is a large reason why 5e is generally much more balanced that prior editions of D&D with far less ways to truly 'break' the game. It also makes the gameplay much smoother because enemies to-hit and AC do not need to increase as much as you get higher level. On page 274 of the DMG, there is even a chart for rough AC numbers based on a creature's CR (Challenge Rating. The higher the CR, the more 'powerful' the creature): CR 0-3: 13 AC CR 4: 14 AC CR 5-7: 15 AC CR 8-9: 16 AC CR 10-12: 17 AC CR 13-16: 18 AC CR 17+: 19 AC Look at those numbers. Over the course of 17 'levels' of CR, the enemies AC only increases by an average of +6. Just having Advantage almost cancels that growth out entirely. Here is an analysis of the actual monsters made available from WoTC and their respective change in AC -> https://i.stack.imgur.com/a6rlg.pngLastly, if you take a level 1 character and a level 17+ character, give them the same stats and the same weapon, the total difference in their to-hit roll will be....+4. That's it. A level 1 character has a proficiency bonus of +2 and a level 17+ character has one of +6. The difference between these otherwise the same characters is less than the difference from Adv/Dis. That is how strong Adv/Dis is mathematically. Hopefully by now, you can see why getting Adv/Dis is such a huge deal in 5e rules, and why being able to have them should be considered such a huge impact on the mathematics at play. The Gameplay: - Here is a non-exhaustive list of class features and spells that grant Adv or impose Dis for characters between levels 1-4: General Actions: 1. Dodge/Help 2. Dropping Prone against Ranged Attacks Spells: 3. True Strike 4. Vicious Mockery 5. Cause Fear 6. Command (certain instructions) 7. Compelled Duel 8. Ensnaring Strike 9. Entangle 10. Faerie Fire 11. Find Familiar (Help Action) 12. Fog Cloud (Depending on types of sight) 13. Grease 14. Guiding Bolt 15. Protection from Evil/Good (Against certain enemy types) 16. Sleep 17. Snare 18. Tasha's Hideous Laughter 19. Zephyr Strike 20. Blindness/Deafness 21. Blur 22. Darkness (Depending on types of sight) 23. Heat Metal 24. Hold Person 25. Invisibility 26. Maximilian's Earthen Grasp 27. Shadow Blade (Depending on lighting) 28. Web Class Features: 29. Barbarian - Reckless Attack 30. Barbarian - Wolf Totem 31. Barbarian - Ancestral Protectors 32. Bard - Words of Terror 33. Cleric - Warding Flare 34. Cleric - Invoke Duplicity 35. Druid - Multiple Wildshape forms that grants Pack Tactics (Wolf, etc) 36. Fighter - Distracting Strike 37. Fighter - Feinting Attack 38. Fighter - Goading Attack 39. Fighter - Menacing Attack 40. Fighter - Trip Attack 41. Fighter - Fighting Spirit 42. Monk - Patient Defense 43. Monk - Open Hand Technique (knocked Prone) 44. Paladin - Conquering Presence 45. Paladin - Nature's Wrath 46. Paladin - Abjure Enemy 47. Paladin - Vow of Emnity 48. Paladin - Dreadful Aspect 49. Ranger - Umbral Sight 50. Rogue - Assassinate 51. Rogue - Master of Tactics 52. Rogue - Cunning Action (Stealth) 53. Sorcerer - Eyes of the Dark 54. Sorcerer - Tides of Chaos 55. Warlock - Hexblade's Curse 56. Warlock - Pact of the Chain (Help from Familiar) 56 different spells, actions, and class features (I'm sure I missed some as well). Every single one of these costs a resource or imposes a penalty for using. For example, the Dodge Action takes your characters Action for that turn. The Barbarian's Reckless Attack makes the Barbarian grant Advantage to anyone attacking it for a turn, making it significantly more likely that they will take damage for that turn. The Open Palm Monk's tripping attack takes Ki to attempt and still provides an enemy with a Save first. And this list is ONLY for levels 1-4. It grows massively once you start getting higher levels characters. Each and every one of these has the same benefit as Adv/Dis from Height and Backstab, which means each of those class features and spells are essentially pointless given how much easier it is to just get higher or to walk around a target. This is terrible, TERRIBLE for balance. You are throwing out 6+ years of playtesting the rules and balance of 5e. Finally, Rogue's deserve special mention due to how their primary class feature (Sneak Attack) interacts with Advantage/Disadvantage. Ignoring the cheapening of the Rogue in general due to every class now having Stealth as a bonus action, Rogue's are not able to use Sneak Attack if they have Disadvantage on a roll. This makes it extremely difficult for a Rogue to use their primary function against any target that is above them. This is terrible for the balance of the class. Not in the Rules: The rules of 5e to not provide Advantage/Disadvantage due to different in Height. There is an *optional* rule in the DM regarding Facing and what might be called 'backstab' but 90% of the rule (including the ability to use your Reaction to face the target and deny them Backstab) is not implemented, meaning that rule was not used. Anecdotally, I have never, ever heard of any DM using the Facing system because of how much it throws a wrench in the gameplay process. Possible Solutions: First, remove granting Advantage/Disadvantage for Height and Backstab. As you can see from the list, there are enough ways to get Adv/Dis, BUT they are all balanced by having a cost/penalty associated with using them. Next, if Larian still wants to incorporate having a benefit for having higher elevation than a target and/or maneuvering near a target, please incorporate the Cover and Flanking mechanics as described in the first linked Primary Topics Link. Cover provides a potential benefit for being higher than your target because your target will not have Cover from your attack. Additionally, you will possibly have some Cover from attacks from below due to the surface providing elevation. Flanking also requires at least 2 allies in melee combat, increasing the risk to those characters for the reward of potentially having a greater chance to hit. Alternatively, if Cover/Flanking is deemed to difficult or impossible due to the limitations of the DoS engine being used, then replace Adv/Dis with a flat +2/-2 bonus (which is the bonus provided from Cover and Flanking respectively). This makes players still want to seek out sources of Adv/Dis due to their higher mathematical benefit, while also not invaliding all of the listed spells, actions, and class features. … We have a god mode and I like being able to enter god mode… but when it’s special. At the moment, it’s totally common and without any consequences in Baldur’s Gate 3. Increase the depths of combats and possibilities to play with the game is probably fine to everyone … There’s a lot of place for interesting custom rules and bonuses if you don’t allow players to enter god mode at each turn and without any consequences. Rework advantages and create real consequences/conditions/choices could lead to more tactical combats and options for the players. 0.2 The D20The D20 is another thing we talked a lot on the forum. Missing to much is not fun for many players.There are lots of solution to increase our % to hit in D&D, but there’s also often a D20 that could be very unfair. We have to find a good compromise between the balance of D&D and the D20… and what many don’t want to experience in a video game: missing very often.
Community suggestions : - An option that could add a +â€x†bonus to every D20, in every situation whatever the check could be something that keep D&D’s balance safe while at the same time would increase our % to hit. This could be a good way to customize our experience. From a +0 for a more authentic D&D experience to a +5 to increase our overall % to hit by +25% in any situations if needed. - An option to reduce the ennemy's AC. (EDIT 15/11/20)- An "auto advantages" after 3 miss. (EDIT 15/11/20)- Something like "+5% to hit" each time a character miss. (EDIT 15/11/20)With this mechanics and what is suggested below, we could have many possibilities to increase our control on the game.This should be totally optional and not a part of the “normal†game mode. CHAPTER 1: USUAL ACTIONS IN COMBATSThis is a list of action and bonus action that everyone should be able to use at each turn. 1.1 () actions- Dash*- Hide*- Disengage*- Ready (let you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn to range or melee or cantrip attack when an enemy move within your range) - Dodge (Until the start of your next turn, any attack roll made against you has disadvantage if you can see the attacker, and you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage. You lose this benefit if you are incapacitated or if your speed drops to 0) - Administer a potion to someone else (replace the actual “helpâ€) - Knockout- Throw1.2 (Bonus) actions- Drink a potion - Shove (to push)- Shove (to prone)You make a strength (Athletics) or dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by the target’s strength (Athletics) or dexterity (Acrobatics) check. If you succeed, the target is prone. An attack roll against a prone creature give you an additional +3 bonus if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature. Otherwise, you suffer a -2 malus to your attack roll. A prone target gets up its next turn with ½ less movement). I’m not sure it’s relevant to grant an advantage to a bonus action. - Help] (to move)To aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within “5†feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally more effective. If the ally you choose move within range of the ennemy’s weapons before your next turn, the enemy can’t use its reaction and can’t use its AOO. - Help (to attack)To aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within “5†feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If the ally you choose use a range attack or a cantrip before your next turn, the first attack roll has a bonus of +3 (+15% to hit). This could greatly increase the synergy between companions - Dipping (consume rare component and is only available for the next attack, see 4.3 Dipping). - Change weapon (take your second weapon) * Rogue Cunning: Dash, disengage and hide are bonus action instead of full action at lvl 2. * Rogue Sneak Attack shouldn’t be a specific action and should apply to normal attacks, left hand attacks and AOO if the conditions are made. * Rogue expertise is implemented. Maybe it (could) helps them to shove (to prone) or to dodge. I’m not sure how it works in D&D. * I’m not sure about Help. Maybe it could become a reaction as AOO… I mean why not? When an ally attacks the creature you targeted with help, you use your reaction to distract the monster and give a +2 bonus to attack roll. I think it’s important to avoid another “help†loop where everyone help everyone at each turn. If reactions are properly implemented, “Help†as a reaction could become a consistent choice. If help has to stay a bonus action for a reason or another, it should then require a check and a bad consequence if you miss. 1.3 (Re)actionsReactions should definitely work like in D&D and be considered like another type of (re)actions. Reactions “when you choose to react†add awesome choices, depth and tactical value to combats. It’s another thing to manage, to think about and another “action†to do during our turns. It would increase the intensity and the feeling of chaos in combats.Reactions should be something you have to care and think about. You have a very limited number of possibilities in Baldur’s Gate 3. The trigger is automatic and you never choose what, and when. At the moment you don’t really care about reactions because there is a huge lack of possibilities and because you have a very limited control on them.I.E: Being able to use Feather Fall while a goblin just Shove (to push) a party member in a hole is absolutely awesome. Being able to use Shield to avoid the magic missile an enemy spellcaster just throw at you is also awesome, being able to “ambush†an enemy using the “ready†action… There are tons of reactions in D&D and that would definitely suit a video game. That’s how D&D create more chaotic and intense combats in their TB game. Maybe it’s impossible to add every D&D reaction, I don’t really know but there’s a lot of potential there. Reaction are a part of the “resource managementâ€Reaction cost a reaction, and you have only 1 reaction per turn. That mean you won’t be able to do another one until your next turn but it also often cost a spell slots… Spells slots and reactions should be something we have to manage and care about. I guess everyone would be pleased if we could choose what to do with these (re)actions in a larger panel of possibilities. I.E using a reaction means you protect yourself with a shield to avoid damages, BUT you loose 1 spell slot and you won’t be able to use your attack of opportunity or your “ready†action to attack an enemy as soon as someone enter your line of sight. Reactions are real strategic choices; these choices have real tactical consequences and combats feel more dynamic.I know Larian is working on it, but they never really confirm that they’ll enable the “reaction when you choose to reactâ€, which is really necessary. That’s a must have in such a game. The question “how?†is open.
CHAPTER 2: USUAL ACTIONS TO MOVE
2.1 MovementLadder and climbing should probably cost movement.About the “howâ€, I don’t have the good answer… Maybe a “fixed†value whatever the size (let’s say 2m) could be okay… or an accurate reduction of your movement… I don’t know, but it should probably not be cost free. 2.2 JumpJump should only be a part of your movement. It shouldn’t be nor an action, nor a bonus action. If you jump 5m, you should just have 5m less to move during your turn.I don’t really know how it work but jump looks a little bit buggy atm. I shouldn’t be able to go further if I just “normal†jump without spells or something. Jump should absolutely not avoid AOO. When an AOO trigger, an attack roll VS your AC is done. It doesn’t require an acrobatic check or something else. That’s maybe what you’ll do in P&P but the result is the same… They don’t have to create another “special AOO in reactions to jumpâ€. And if you can jump further than you can move (because of a spell or something), you jump and your speed reach 0 after it’s jump. CHAPTER 3: ADVANCED COMBAT MECHANICS
3.1 BackstabBackstab is actually a very common and too easy mechanic at the moment. We can backstab easily, without any limit and without any consequences. On the other hand, the AI won’t be able to focus to create the good conditions to use backstab as much as we will. Community suggestions : - Backstab could be a more common bonus, something like a +2 bonus (+10% to hit) (EDIT 15/11/20)- Maybe backstab could still be an advantage, but in that case it should be toned down a little bit… Why not something like that. You move behind your enemy The enemy use his AOO (if possible) You attack with an advantage Dexterity / Strength saving throw for the enemy against a specific DD (15 in normal game mode). If he fails, you deal 100% damages (resistances could decrease the damages) If he succeeds, you deal 50% damages (resistances could decrease the damages) +40 % to hit if you play with the +3 bonus to each D20 roll (see 0.2), but maybe you’ll deal 50% damages and take AOO damages if no one “help†you (to move). A usual advantage with real consequences if you play without any bonus. I guess it’s everyone’s choices.
3.2 VerticalityHaving a bonus when we’re higher to increase the % to hit of ranged characters is fine.Having a malus when we’re down is too powerful. This mean being higher significantly influence combats. You have an average of 75% to hit on the D20 while everyone that is lower than you have an average 25% to hit you. You’re god, again. Advantage for the player is too powerful and again, the AI wouldn’t be able to efficiently play with it.Your enemies won’t be able to create the conditions to break your platform, to shove (to push) you just to avoid the 75% / 25% to hit chance, to cast an efficient Blindness to delete your advantage and/ or to use dash a few turns to regroup and find better positions to continue the combat… Tone down the bonus and use higher ground as a "normal" common strategy instead of an overpowered mechanic could probably balance the game a little bit more and reduce our possibility to significantly cheat the AI. In exemple (and that’s just an exemple…) We could have a +2 (+10% to hit) bonus to attack roll when we’re higher. That’s really not so bad and if you combine this with other mechanics and use the synergy between your companions, your % to hit can be even higher. If you combine this with “help (to attack), you have a bonus of +5 (+20% to hit), but it costs the bonus action of an ally nearby your target.
A total of +35% if you play with the†+3 bonus to every D20 roll†optional rule.
I think that’s fair enough. What do you think?3.3 LightI don’t really know how it work yet. It’s great to be able to play with the light but it’s hard to understand without D/N cycle. You never really know when you’re in shadows or in light. Lights looks a little bit buggy. Advantage when you’re in the shadow of a tree or if you’re 10 feets away from a candle doesn’t seem consistent, but I have to test a little bit more. Does anyone has feedback in mind about lights?3.4 Increase your % to hitThis is a summary of actions that could lead to (new) bonuses / advantages. - Help from a friend: bonus action = +10% to hit - Attack a prone target: +15% to melee attack, -10% to range attack - Backstab: attack with an advantage with a saving throw to avoid 50% of the damages - High ground: +10% to hit - Ambush: advantage (hide, invisibility, blinded enemy, …) - Light : ? - D&D spells, features, skills, … click the spoiler to read how you can have advantages or suffer disadvantages in D&DAttack rolls made by a blinded creature have disadvantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against a blinded target have advantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against an invisible target have disadvantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls made by an invisible creature have advantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls against a paralyzed target have advantage. (Hold Person)
Attack rolls against a petrified target have advantage. (Flesh to Stone)
Attack rolls and ability checks made by a poisoned creature have disadvantage. (ray of sickness)
Attack rolls against a prone target have advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet, or disadvantage otherwise. (Tashas hideous laughter, Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls made by a prone creature have disadvantage.(Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls against a restrained target have advantage.(Poor Grapple :()
Attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws made by a restrained creature have disadvantage.(Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Mental Prison, Telekinesis, Web, Whirlwind, Transmute Rock, Snare, and many more)
Attack rolls against a stunned target have advantage. (Stunning strike – Monk, Contagion, Divine Word, Psychic Scream, Symbol)
Attack rolls against an unconscious target have advantage. (Catnap, Eyebite, Sleep, Symbol)
A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight. (Fear, Eyebite, Hallow, Illusionary Dragon, Phantasmal Killer, Symbol, Wrathful smite) You have more options to increase your % to hit, you can combine them to be more efficient if that’s a part of your strategy and advantages are toned down.
This would lead to an easier D&D “balance†while custom rules would give us more possibilities to increase our %to hit without using something like a level 9 spells so easily. As I said, keep in mind that this is a suggestion. I’m not a DM nor a TT player. Bonuses and % I suggested are just an attempt to play with the rules. Better, easier or other ideas are welcome. CHAPTER 4: SURFACES AND ADDITIONAL DAMAGESPlaying with surfaces is an awesome signature of Larian. Nearly everyone agrees to say that surfaces definitely have a place in Baldur’s Gate 3.Surfaces give us more things to do in combats and this is exactly what a D&D game should do. But surfaces are, as backstab and higher ground advantages, on the way to fully determine what combats are going to be in Baldur’s Gate 3, especially when we’ll have powerful AoE spells like fireball or ice storm. Exactly like backstab and higher ground advantages, they’re on the way to become so powerful than players won’t have any other efficient alternative… And that’s probably not what a great RPG, D&D and strategy turn base game should offer us. Toned down and reworked surfaces effects could lead to more opportunities, but also to choices that are more tactical, to more “special†encounter and to an experience a little bit more authentic if you consider the original balance of D&D.The most common and general suggestion to tone down surfaces seems to be something like this : a saving throw or any other skill checks should always be done to avoid conditions and/or additional damages done by surfacesAt the moment, surfaces arrows, surfaces potions, surfaces cantrip and every elemental damage from dipping are the same. Baldur’s Gate 3 multiply the mechanics that all lead to the same results. This could give a feeling of freedom, but it certainly limits our real possibilities and devalues our choices to take control of the game.Choices are more difficult if you don’t have the same opportunity everywhere. We should have to choose wisely how and when to create surfaces. Larian’s rules deserve to become a part of D&D’s rules… but they won't ever be a part of D&D if they alter the experience so much.
There are too much powerful items and mechanics to have the feeling you’re playing with D&D’s rules… Because D&D is all about choices, consequences and resources management while Baldur’s Gate 3 combats are “all about†backstab, high ground, surfaces or additional elemental damages.4.1 Cantrips and Area Of effect.Cantrips shouldn’t always create surfaces. Many players suggested that cantrip could target a creature or the ground. Players choices – 2 possibilities:- You hit the ground with your cantrip so a surface is created and it’s proper conditions/damages/saving throws apply. I guess it’s fair to increase a little bit the range of the AoE in that case. - You hit a target, and the cantrips effects/damages sticks to D&D’s rules. About Area of Effect, we probably can't test enough at the moment but they will probably be another good reasons to tone down surfaces effects. (EDIT 15/11/20)4.2 Surfaces potions and arrows.Surfaces items are a good way to increase the difficulty of specific encounter and to give great reward to players. These items are powerful because it leads to many damages. This is another way to easy tone down surfaces: Rarer surfaces items.If several encounters (i.e boss fights) are harder because the enemies have a few surfaces arrows or potion… These combats are more special and harder to deal with. On the other hand, it could be a less common boost for players. We’ll have to think more before using them. Less surfaces items would lead to more important surfaces items.
4.3 DippingDipping is also a very common, easy and powerful mechanic.You don’t need it to beat the game, but it lead to extra damages nearly cost free… The AI won’t dip its weapons, so players have another huge bonus over the AI.First of all, dipping should probably require surfaces to be enabled. A candle on the ground shouldn’t be able to ignite your sword. Then I guess rework dipping so it requires “rare†component should balance this mechanic a little bit more according to D&D and become something a little bit more “special†instead of something very “usualâ€. With less common and “inconsistent magical weaponsâ€, the game could include many items players would fall in love with… A real magical sword dealing +1D4 additional fire damages or a bow/quiver that always give +1D4 electricity arrows is something we all enjoy in a game.
Community suggestion :- Remove dipping and why not, remove "surfaces potions". Create potions that allow us to coat our weapons. (EDIT 15/11/20)CHAPTER 5: VISUAL IMPROVEMENT
5.1 MissA beautiful animation and/or the removal of the word “miss†on enemies (his place is on the combats log) could tone down the bad feeling player have while “missingâ€. If you increase what player can choose to do during one turn - (bonus-) (re-) -actions, give them more opportunity to influence the % to hit and show us beautiful dodge or weapons that are repelled by armors and shields … Combats could become more fluent, players could easily find new ways to influence the dices and to masteries combats, missing would be less boring. Community suggestion : - More verbiage for missing would be good. Wielding a melee weapon and being missed by a melee attack will occasionally replace the miss with a "parry". Wearing no armour, light armour or medium armour will pop an occasional "dodge". Wearing heaving armour or wielding a shield will sometimes pop a "block". More variety in miss animations would be nice (e.g raising your shield". This could work in combinations of specific animations. (EDIT 15/11/20)5.2 Critical cutscene improvementCritical cutscene are awesome, but the angle of the camera and the speed should be adjusted so we can enjoy them more. 5.3 More combats cutscene and/or animation.I am not sure what could be considered realistic expectations on this point, but "better"/"more" combats animations could give a feeling of more dynamic, more “realâ€, less “static†combats.
[u]
Community feedback :- More cutscene would probably slow down combats. (EDIT 15/11/20)
CHAPTER 6: OTHER COMBATS RELATED SUGGESTIONS
6.1 Must have- Scrolls shouldn’t be usable by anyone (D&D rules) - Tone Down Enemy 'Special' Attack (Stick more to D&D – Also related to HP bloat / AC reduction and the overall balance of the game) - Game should let player to use versatile weapons 1H or 2H regardless whether their offhand is empty or not - Longbows, shortbows, and crossbows all having the same range doesn't make sense. Longbows and crossbows should have a longer range than short bows. Proper range attack for everything (spells included). - We should be able to choose who our spells affect if D&D allow us to choose (i.e choose who are the targets of bless) - In combat, don’t allow us to access to other’s companions inventory. EDIT 15/11/20 - Some players love shared inventory, some love personnal inventory, some suggest being able to pick in others inventorry at "short" (to determine) range. - Food shouldn’t be an alternative to healing potions or spells. We certainly shouldn’t be able to eat food during combat and maybe we shouldn’t find so much food. HP management is too easy. - Speed up combats. I guess these suggestions could improve the speed of combats. Less AC reduction / HP Bloat and creatures a little bit closer to the MM should also increase the speed of combats (Faster =/= Easier. There are many ways to increase the difficulty. I.E more damages for ennemies) - We shouldn’t be able to stay out of combats after we hit an enemy. An enemy under attack should always move to find where the attack come from (to avoid or limit the shoot / hide / shoot / hide / … loop) 6.2 Why Not?- Maybe % hit and/or information about creatures shouldn’t be visible at the first time we encounter them. Something like a growing bestiary could be cool - The cover mechanic of D&D is great and could increase the tactical value of the game. TO DO : CHAPTER 7 : ITEMS
7.x Introduction and influence of items on combats
7.x Potions
7.x Barrels
7.x ...
Anyway all this could :
- Balance the game
- Lead to a more D&D general experience in a Larian setting
- Increase synergy between companions
- Increase the tactical value of the game, the possibilities and the freedom in the gameplay. increase our possibility to control the game.
- Cancel the "lack of actions at low level in D&D" (to quote someone)
This is more D&D, this is more Larian and this is more BG. What could be wrong ?
Thanks to the community because it's only because I read MANY feedbacks and suggestions that I'm able to create such a thread. According to me this is consistent and a very good compromise to what BG3 combats could looks like. Please help me to improve this.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 15/11/20 12:16 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Very well done compilation, Maximuuus. Just to support the part where you discuss the advantage system (which for me is the most cancerous rule of the game regarding balance) let me share my list of the special conditions that they’ve nerfed & spells that can cause that.
Attack rolls made by a blinded creature have disadvantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against a blinded target have advantage. (Deafness / Blind, blinding smite, color spray, contagion, divine word, holy aura/weapon, sunbeam, sunburst)
Attack rolls against an invisible target have disadvantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls made by an invisible creature have advantage. (invisibility & greater invisibility)
Attack rolls against a paralyzed target have advantage. (Hold Person)
Attack rolls against a petrified target have advantage. (Flesh to Stone)
Attack rolls and ability checks made by a poisoned creature have disadvantage. (ray of sickness)
Attack rolls against a prone target have advantage if the attacker is within 5 feet, or disadvantage otherwise. (Tashas hideous laughter, Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls made by a prone creature have disadvantage.(Destructive wave, earthquake, sleet storm, thunderous smite, Grease, etc)
Attack rolls against a restrained target have advantage.(Poor Grapple :()
Attack rolls and Dexterity saving throws made by a restrained creature have disadvantage.(Ensnaring Strike, Entangle, Mental Prison, Telekinesis, Web, Whirlwind, Transmute Rock, Snare, and many more)
Attack rolls against a stunned target have advantage. (Stunning strike – Monk, Contagion, Divine Word, Psychic Scream, Symbol)
Attack rolls against an unconscious target have advantage. (Catnap, Eyebite, Sleep, Symbol)
A frightened creature has disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is within line of sight. (Fear, Eyebite, Hallow, Illusionary Dragon, Phantasmal Killer, Symbol, Wrathful smite)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
|
|
Banned
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Great suggestions. I agree with all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
1. What's wrong with accessing other companions' inventory? The only thing that changes is that you don't have to waste time dividing items between
characters and also to constantly transfer items from character to character because your main character no longer has a capacity.
This is a typical quality of life change that literally doesn't spoil the game.
2. Weapon range. Well, it's because of the limitations of the fight. But if you increase the range of longbows,
wouldn't that mean you should increase the range of the spells as well? Or maybe lower the range of shortbows?
There is not the slightest reason to range attacks even stronger.
3. How are the various miss animations going to make a difference? No matter how good the animations are, you end up missing 5 times in a row.
It's not that it's boring to miss,
but rather that when you repeatedly fail to hit an enemy or die worse for it, it becomes frustrating quickly.
In this case, AC reduction is 100% justified and the fact that some opponents have a little more HP does not have that much impact.
Besides, someone recently put in the calculations that increasing HP and lowering AC does not have a great impact on the speed of the fight
and the only thing that improves the player's better experience by allowing him to hit more often.
4. Adding more cutscenes to a fight is a very bad idea and all it does is extend the fights.
These things are fun for the first few hours, but then they quickly get bored and waste your time.
5. What's the point of hiding creature stats?
It's not like we come across the same creatures over and over again (except maybe goblins).
We will probably meet many creatures once or twice for the entire game.
Even enemies of the same type may have different resistances (such as minitaurs), wouldn't if you hide their resistances it wouldn't make all of them the same?
Let me not even mention hiding% because this idea is just too stupid.
6. If the dip becomes resource consuming you might as well remove it. What would be the point of introducing special resources for one action if the game had removed the required resources for everything else.
You don't have any spell components or even arrows in the game (that doesn't mean I'd like them to add them).
7. The changes in the help do not make much sense, it will be an action that will not make sense to use in combat. Not only are you wasting your action on something that doesn't deal damage / heals, but the bonuses it provides are very small. As a reaction, it also doesn't make much sense as it will hardly ever be used, the other available reactions are just better.
8. I am against any popups during a fight, especially if they stop the fight.
Popups (potentially multiple times per turn) are terribly annoying, even in a single player game like Solasta. This is much worse with a multiplayer game like BG3.
9. Ready with the current reaction system makes no sense.
I'll answer the rest later.
Also, if something is in the D&D rules, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement it in-game.
Last edited by Rhobar121; 14/11/20 04:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Thanks for putting this together. I agree with the problems identified, but not necessarily the solutions. Note, the below might seem nitpicky, but that's because I'm pointing the things out that I'm disagreeing with, not all the great stuff that I do agree with.
I’m not sure that’s a good suggestion so here again… Feel free to correct/help me to find something better.
I guess a +â€x†bonus to every D20, in every situation whatever the check could be something that keep D&D’s balance safe while at the same time would increase our % to hit an average of +15%.
This could be a good way to customize our experience.
From a +0 for a more authentic D&D experience to a +5 to increase our overall % to hit by +25% in any situations if needed.
I would suggest giving the option to lowering DC instead of you having a random +5 bonus, etc. Should provide the same results without breaking the logs/calculations. It can be a separate difficulty slider (kind of Kingdom Management in Kingmaker - lower difficulty = lower DC). We can theoretically do that for AC too, but I would prefer having that baked into enemy difficulty.
Maybe backstab could still be an advantage, but maybe it could be toned down a little bit… Why not something like that.
- You move behind your enemy
- The enemy use his AOO (if possible)
- You attack with an advantage
- Dexterity / Strength saving throw for the enemy against a specific DD (15 in normal game mode).
If he fails, you deal 100% damages (resistances could decrease the damages)
If he succeeds, you deal 50% damages (resistances could decrease the damages)
I agree with the toning down, but I don't agree with the solution. Adding so many different components into this (saving throw, 50% damage), will still throw a lot of 5E's core balance out of wack and introduce more RNG. You're essentially trading hit RNG for damage RNG. There'll also be weird situations where you end up hoping an enemy backstabs you instead of attacking you from the front. It'd be much easier to just give a +2 hit bonus for flanking and just call it a day.
This is a summary of actions that could lead to (new) bonuses / advantages.
- Help from a friend: bonus action = +10% to hit
The "Help from a Friend" Bonus Action is interesting, but I worry that is adding another stealth nerf to Bonus Action heavy classes - i.e. Rogue.
- Attack a prone target: +15% to melee attack, -10% to range attack
Prone gets Advantage from 5E RAW, and I'm not sure why we'd be removing/nerfing that. Light shouldn't give advantage as a cantrip - it'll make spells like Faerie Fire obsolete. It should help remove the "obscured by shadows" disadvantage like dancing lights does in game right now (but I consider that a bug)
6.1 Must have
- Tone Down Enemy 'Special' Attack (Stick more to D&D – Also related to HP bloat / AC reduction and the overall balance of the game)
I think it's good that Larian is rebalancing monsters. I think the HP bloat is overstated, and extra abilities are needed to improve difficulty. We get more items in BG3 (a good thing IMO) that makes our characters stronger than their typical level. Also, a single person playing a PC game is on average FAR more tactical than a chaotic D&D table (just go watch a D&D game). Strictly following MM will make things too easy IMO. Not to mention the MM isn't perfectly balanced within itself either (different monsters of the same CR have huge variance in actual difficulty)
- We should be able to choose who our spells affect (i.e choose who are the targets of bless or the targets of sleep)
Yes and No - it should depend on how the spell is written. Yes to Bless, but no to spells like Sleep*, where the lack of targeting is part of the spell design - i.e. you don't get to choose with Sleep in RAW (it goes from lowest to highest). *Granted, Larian has already changed Sleep to make its targeting better but effects weaker to reduce RNG.
Last edited by Topgoon; 14/11/20 04:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Very well done compilation, Maximuuus. Just to support the part where you discuss the advantage system (which for me is the most cancerous rule of the game regarding balance) let me share my list of the special conditions that they’ve nerfed & spells that can cause that.
I'll add them in 3.3 as a quote if that's fine to you, so it's a part of "the list" that summrize how you can play with % to hit in the game. 1. What's wrong with accessing other companions' inventory? The only thing that changes is that you don't have to waste time dividing items between
characters and also to constantly transfer items from character to character because your main character no longer has a capacity.
This is a typical quality of life change that literally doesn't spoil the game. Keep in mind that we're talking about combats. If you don't have potions left in your inventory, that make sense not being able to pick in the pocket of someone that's not close to you.I mean, if we're talking about the reality of the Forgotten Realms. That's not how things work in the FR. It could be okay to pick in other's inventory if you're close to them, but it's not how things works at the moment. On the other hand many players don't like such inventory management. This should probably be an easy things to toggle ON or OFF. 2. Weapon range. Well, it's because of the limitations of the fight. But if you increase the range of longbows,
wouldn't that mean you should increase the range of the spells as well? Or maybe lower the range of shortbows?
There is not the slightest reason to range attacks even stronger. I'm not sure you have to increase any range. You could just decrease some a few. The range of weapons type is something you can easily change. The game doesn't have to use D&D's range as written. You can keep original balance using the same "proportions". 3. How are the various miss animations going to make a difference? No matter how good the animations are, you end up missing 5 times in a row.
It's not that it's boring to miss,
but rather that when you repeatedly fail to hit an enemy or die worse for it, it becomes frustrating quickly.
In this case, AC reduction is 100% justified and the fact that some opponents have a little more HP does not have that much impact.
Besides, someone recently put in the calculations that increasing HP and lowering AC does not have a great impact on the speed of the fight
and the only thing that improves the player's better experience by allowing him to hit more often.
I think combats feel more dynamic in Solasta because there are more "cutscenes" but you're right... better animations or cutscene won't solve the source problem : missing too much. Hopefully, there's a ton of tweaks in this thread to increase and control our % to hit. AC reduction and HP bloat is another huge part of the D&D's balance issue. I'll probably think about adding a "0.3 HP bloat / AC Reduction" because the question is really important. This suggestion should allow Larian to balance creatures a little more towards D&D, without having to create tons of new "monster's superpower" to counter the god mod everyone can easily enable at the moment. Many issues related to the original balance of D&D are major issues for level 5+ characters. They're probably way too far from D&D at the moment to keep the whole balanced. 4. What's the point of hiding creature stats?
It's not like we come across the same creatures over and over again (except maybe goblins).
We will probably meet many creatures once or twice for the entire game.
Even enemies of the same type may have different resistances (such as minitaurs), wouldn't if you hide their resistances it wouldn't make all of them the same?
Let me not even mention hiding% because this idea is just too stupid.
I'll answer the rest later.
Also, if something is in the D&D rules, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement it in-game. You're right. This was a suggestion I read that I found interessting in a few games. But it would definitely be useless (or a fun breaker) in the game. I'll delete this one. And you're right about what's in D&D is not always a good idea. If your comment is related to the cover mechanic, I agree with you. It's fun in tactical game because it's another part of the tactic, but Baldur's Gate 3 is not a military game in which anyone would be able to flank ennemies with it's archers and spellcaster. It would also need a lot of job to redesign the map and every encounter. That's not necessary.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 14/11/20 05:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Some great suggestions, I agree with most of this. Also nice to see it all condensed in one place.
However, highlighting some exceptions and issues I personally have:
1.1 & 1.2 Acions and bonus actions:
I definitely don't like shove being a bonus action considering how powerful it is. I don't think changing the rules for attacking a prone creature is necessary, either. Edit: I'd also like to see players have an option to knock prone with shove, shove be reduced to 5 feet as per 5e rules and have it utilise a contested atheltics vs athletics/acrobatics ability check (currently I believe it's an attack roll but may be wrong on that).
I think Throw should remain an action, it's fairly powerful as is and was something people really complained about back in the initial showcase months ago which was actually changed before EA iirc.
Changing weapon shouldn't take a bonus action either and should remain a free action (between your ranged and melee option). I think they should let us have two weapon loadouts which we can switch between as a free action once on your turn using a toggle (see Solasta), much like the current one-handed vs two-handed attack option.
I'm actually a big fan of the current implementation of Help. The only problem I have with it is that it restores 1 hit point to a downed character instead of stabilising them, which creates these awkward and frankly ridiculous combat scenario where one character is trapped reviving another character in an endless cycle. Maybe they could add an option to use Help on an opponent within melee range to give advtange to the next attack roll or ability check an ally makes against the creature. Also maybe using Help on a stabilised character could cause a Medicine check that if successful grants an ally 1 hit point.
2.1 Movement
Ladders should essentially count a difficult terrain unless you have a climbing speed as per 5e rules. Probably not a major priority or issue, though.
2.2 Jump
I don't really mind Jump being a bonus action and thus being more powerful, although I can be swayed on this. I definitely don't like the fact it disengages, however.
3.1 Backstab
I think these backstab rules are convoluted, unbalanced and unnecessary. Just get rid of backstab altogether, it doesn't make sense without the full implementation of facing rules, which would just be a chore. At most a small benefit for flanking maybe?
3.3 Light
I think the rules for light are just currently bugged at the moment...
4 Surfaces and Additional Damage.
Surfaces need to be toned down; rarer, shorter and more balanced. Use spells like Spirit Guardian and Sleet Storm as examples: if you start your turn or move into the area for the first time each turn you take some damage with a relevant save to take only half damage.
4.1 Cantrips and Area of Effect
Hard disagree on all AoE spells wantonly creating surfaces. There already are spells that essentially create surfaces (see again: Spirit Guardian, Sleet Storm). I don't think they need to be arbitrarily slapped onto all AoE spells just because they are AoE spells. I don't mind relevant interactions creating surfaces, such as casting a fire spell on grease, but otherwise it's going too far.
5.1 Miss
Definitely don't want miss cutscenes slowing down combat and emphasising feelsbad moments.
5.3 Combat cutscenes
Again, in my opinion combat cutscenes are jarring, slow things down and dilute the momentousness of critical hits. Having them for crits is enough.
6.1 Must have
I actually think allowing all classes to use scrolls is a good move. It adds more things for everyone to do (which Larian has issues with) and it facilitates people who want to run party composition of their choice, rather than feeling compelled to bring spellcasters.
I don't see anything wrong with accessing companions inventory. It's really just QoL but maybe a range limit if there isn't one already (haven't tested).
I don't necessarily mind monsters having more special attacks. I haven't noticed it being particularly overdone so far, either.
I also wanted to highlight some excellent points you've made that I think deserve some extra emphasis.
a). Advantage is definitely too prevalent currently. An optional loaded dice mechanic could help alleviate issues many people have with missing. Not sure how I feel about lots of additional/different modifiers affecting hit like you've suggested (3.4). 5e was created to be very streamlined and a lot of these floating modifier were removed, but they are a lot easier to manage in a video game, so some might be beneficial.
b). Hide, Disengage, Dodge and Ready as actions, definitely. Ready and Dodge give options if you've nothing else to use your action on, and add some more tactical decision making (e.g focusing on defence, or setting up ambushes). No idea why they weren't implemented.
c). Reactions as they stand now are terrible. I would love pop-ups personally but understand why many people are against this. Not sure what the solution is but believe Larian should just trust 5e on this.
d). Again surfaces need to be rarer and toned down and more in-keeping with existing 5e rules.
e). More verbiage for missing would be good. Wielding a melee weapon and being missed by a melee attack will occasionally replace the miss with a "parry". Wearing no armour, light armour or medium armour will pop an occasional "dodge". Wearing heaving armour or wielding a shield will sometimes pop a "block". More variety in miss animations would be nice (e.g raising your shield).
f). Eating during combat is ridiculous, definitely needs changing.
g). Love the idea of a growing bestiary but I understand it being a low priority. Personally, I think Examine could be an interesting bonus action that makes a relevant Intelligence check to uncover extra information, but reckon a lot of player would find it boring.
h). I cannot fathom why Bless doesn't let you choose your targets; the technology exists with Magic Missiles. Why did the decide to make it so cumbersome to use?
Finally, while it may not directly relate to combat, I don't think you can discuss D&D 5e combat ideas and balance without talking about rests. Currently long and short rests in BG3 are terribly implemented. So much of the game, in and outside of combat, revolves around them. We need more limits for long rests and greater availability of short rests.
Last edited by Changeling4; 14/11/20 06:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
3. How are the various miss animations going to make a difference? No matter how good the animations are, you end up missing 5 times in a row.
It's not that it's boring to miss,
but rather that when you repeatedly fail to hit an enemy or die worse for it, it becomes frustrating quickly.
In this case, AC reduction is 100% justified and the fact that some opponents have a little more HP does not have that much impact.
Besides, someone recently put in the calculations that increasing HP and lowering AC does not have a great impact on the speed of the fight
and the only thing that improves the player's better experience by allowing him to hit more often.
Also, if something is in the D&D rules, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement it in-game.
Again, just because I don’t think you understood completely that this game is not just about martial classes, but casters as well. The calculation of the ac was built over a martial class. Sharing fallacious information just to make your argument stronger is counter productive and dishonest. Actually Maximuuus saved a lot of effort by posting the list of the nerfed spells. I’d suggest to read it again. Google it > read them > understand them. Quite simple recipe. Players don’t like to miss is also an argument that I can’t simply understand. Where have you found this academic paper that people don’t like to miss? I do think that missing is charming and clever and I’m not brave enough to state in this very forum that “people like to missâ€. The way WE feel about certain aspects of the game it’s very personal. I’d advise you to not speak for the others, unless you have statistical evidence. Now, regarding your last phrase: yes you are right. Some features cannot be translated to a video game. Yet, judging by your counter arguments it’s clear that you are not very interested in understanding the mechanics that are being challenged by the community. I can only see someone trying not to hurt Larians feelings
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
3. How are the various miss animations going to make a difference? No matter how good the animations are, you end up missing 5 times in a row.
It's not that it's boring to miss,
but rather that when you repeatedly fail to hit an enemy or die worse for it, it becomes frustrating quickly.
In this case, AC reduction is 100% justified and the fact that some opponents have a little more HP does not have that much impact.
Besides, someone recently put in the calculations that increasing HP and lowering AC does not have a great impact on the speed of the fight
and the only thing that improves the player's better experience by allowing him to hit more often.
Also, if something is in the D&D rules, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement it in-game.
Again, just because I don’t think you understood completely that this game is not just about martial classes, but casters as well. The calculation of the ac was built over a martial class. Sharing fallacious information just to make your argument stronger is counter productive and dishonest. Actually Maximuuus saved a lot of effort by posting the list of the nerfed spells. I’d suggest to read it again. Google it > read them > understand them. Quite simple recipe. Players don’t like to miss is also an argument that I can’t simply understand. Where have you found this academic paper that people don’t like to miss? I do think that missing is charming and clever and I’m not brave enough to state in this very forum that “people like to missâ€. The way WE feel about certain aspects of the game it’s very personal. I’d advise you to not speak for the others, unless you have statistical evidence. Now, regarding your last phrase: yes you are right. Some features cannot be translated to a video game. Yet, judging by your counter arguments it’s clear that you are not very interested in understanding the mechanics that are being challenged by the community. I can only see someone trying not to hurt Larians feelings You could stop being toxic to anyone who disagrees with you. If the opinions of veterans like Josh Sawyer (if you don't trust Swen) are not enough for you (if you want, I'll look for it later), I don't know what you expect. I can always reverse the argument and ask you how do you know players like to miss? However, this type of discussion does not make sense. Due to the changes in the rest system, the casters are much stronger than normal even after the AC change, and this will get deeper with each level. In a computer game, rest will never be as limited as in PnP, provided you don't give a hard limit, which no one will do. Even in BG2, you could rest after almost every fight (which D&D game had a limited rest?).
Last edited by Rhobar121; 14/11/20 06:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
1. What's wrong with accessing other companions' inventory? The only thing that changes is that you don't have to waste time dividing items between
characters and also to constantly transfer items from character to character because your main character no longer has a capacity.
This is a typical quality of life change that literally doesn't spoil the game. Outside combat, sure. But in combat the choice who carries certain items should matter. And we have throw you can use to transfer items during combat. It would even give Acrobatics or Sleight of Hand a use if you would need a check to catch items thrown to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
1. What's wrong with accessing other companions' inventory? The only thing that changes is that you don't have to waste time dividing items between
characters and also to constantly transfer items from character to character because your main character no longer has a capacity.
This is a typical quality of life change that literally doesn't spoil the game. Outside combat, sure. But in combat the choice who carries certain items should matter. And we have throw you can use to transfer items during combat. It would even give Acrobatics or Sleight of Hand a use if you would need a check to catch items thrown to you. What is the point of such restrictions? What does this add to the game apart from being another annoying and pointless mechanic? Why force players to over-manage their inventory. Already, you often have to transfer items from character to character because they are running out of load capacity. This is a game, putting restrictions just because they are realistic without looking at how they negatively affect the game is silly.
Last edited by Rhobar121; 14/11/20 06:37 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
1. What's wrong with accessing other companions' inventory? The only thing that changes is that you don't have to waste time dividing items between
characters and also to constantly transfer items from character to character because your main character no longer has a capacity.
This is a typical quality of life change that literally doesn't spoil the game. Outside combat, sure. But in combat the choice who carries certain items should matter. And we have throw you can use to transfer items during combat. It would even give Acrobatics or Sleight of Hand a use if you would need a check to catch items thrown to you. What is the point of such restrictions? What does this add to the game apart from being another annoying and pointless mechanic? Why force players to over-manage their inventory. Already, you often have to transfer items from character to character because they are running out of load capacity. This is a game, putting restrictions just because they are realistic without looking at how they negatively affect the game is silly. Keep in mind that this wouldn't affect negatively the game for everyone. It would be a good improvement for "some" players. Of course own opinions is available for everyone. It also looks like shared inventory is something lots of player like. That's how it works in Baldur's Gate 3 at the moment, exept that we have lines between "own inventories". Not sure what to think about it.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 14/11/20 06:47 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
3. How are the various miss animations going to make a difference? No matter how good the animations are, you end up missing 5 times in a row.
It's not that it's boring to miss,
but rather that when you repeatedly fail to hit an enemy or die worse for it, it becomes frustrating quickly.
In this case, AC reduction is 100% justified and the fact that some opponents have a little more HP does not have that much impact.
Besides, someone recently put in the calculations that increasing HP and lowering AC does not have a great impact on the speed of the fight
and the only thing that improves the player's better experience by allowing him to hit more often.
Also, if something is in the D&D rules, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement it in-game.
Again, just because I don’t think you understood completely that this game is not just about martial classes, but casters as well. The calculation of the ac was built over a martial class. Sharing fallacious information just to make your argument stronger is counter productive and dishonest. Actually Maximuuus saved a lot of effort by posting the list of the nerfed spells. I’d suggest to read it again. Google it > read them > understand them. Quite simple recipe. Players don’t like to miss is also an argument that I can’t simply understand. Where have you found this academic paper that people don’t like to miss? I do think that missing is charming and clever and I’m not brave enough to state in this very forum that “people like to missâ€. The way WE feel about certain aspects of the game it’s very personal. I’d advise you to not speak for the others, unless you have statistical evidence. Now, regarding your last phrase: yes you are right. Some features cannot be translated to a video game. Yet, judging by your counter arguments it’s clear that you are not very interested in understanding the mechanics that are being challenged by the community. I can only see someone trying not to hurt Larians feelings You could stop being toxic to anyone who disagrees with you. If the opinions of veterans like Josh Sawyer (if you don't trust Swen) are not enough for you (if you want, I'll look for it later), I don't know what you expect. I can always reverse the argument and ask you how do you know players like to miss? However, this type of discussion does not make sense. Due to the changes in the rest system, the casters are much stronger than normal even after the AC change, and this will get deeper with each level. In a computer game, rest will never be as limited as in PnP, provided you don't give a hard limit, which no one will do. Even in BG2, you could rest after almost every fight (which D&D game had a limited rest?). Not being toxic. Being rational for once. I’ve said that even though I like to miss I don’t speak for the others like you do. Instead of justifying why missing is bad with arguments you simply throw in the air that people don’t like to miss without a good argument. We all do know what are the side effects of the mechanics that Larian built to the game so you can hit more. Have you tried to understand the arguments of the ones who dislike it? I guess not. That’s what I call being toxic Why you didn’t addressed my counter arguments? I guess you can’t
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
3. How are the various miss animations going to make a difference? No matter how good the animations are, you end up missing 5 times in a row.
It's not that it's boring to miss,
but rather that when you repeatedly fail to hit an enemy or die worse for it, it becomes frustrating quickly.
In this case, AC reduction is 100% justified and the fact that some opponents have a little more HP does not have that much impact.
Besides, someone recently put in the calculations that increasing HP and lowering AC does not have a great impact on the speed of the fight
and the only thing that improves the player's better experience by allowing him to hit more often.
Also, if something is in the D&D rules, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement it in-game.
Again, just because I don’t think you understood completely that this game is not just about martial classes, but casters as well. The calculation of the ac was built over a martial class. Sharing fallacious information just to make your argument stronger is counter productive and dishonest. Actually Maximuuus saved a lot of effort by posting the list of the nerfed spells. I’d suggest to read it again. Google it > read them > understand them. Quite simple recipe. Players don’t like to miss is also an argument that I can’t simply understand. Where have you found this academic paper that people don’t like to miss? I do think that missing is charming and clever and I’m not brave enough to state in this very forum that “people like to missâ€. The way WE feel about certain aspects of the game it’s very personal. I’d advise you to not speak for the others, unless you have statistical evidence. Now, regarding your last phrase: yes you are right. Some features cannot be translated to a video game. Yet, judging by your counter arguments it’s clear that you are not very interested in understanding the mechanics that are being challenged by the community. I can only see someone trying not to hurt Larians feelings You could stop being toxic to anyone who disagrees with you. If the opinions of veterans like Josh Sawyer (if you don't trust Swen) are not enough for you (if you want, I'll look for it later), I don't know what you expect. I can always reverse the argument and ask you how do you know players like to miss? However, this type of discussion does not make sense. Due to the changes in the rest system, the casters are much stronger than normal even after the AC change, and this will get deeper with each level. In a computer game, rest will never be as limited as in PnP, provided you don't give a hard limit, which no one will do. Even in BG2, you could rest after almost every fight (which D&D game had a limited rest?). Not being toxic. Being rational for once. I’ve said that even though I like to miss I don’t speak for the others like you do. Instead of justifying why missing is bad with arguments you simply throw in the air that people don’t like to miss without a good argument. We all do know what are the side effects of the mechanics that Larian built to the game so you can hit more. Have you tried to understand the arguments of the ones who dislike it? I guess not. That’s what I call being toxic Why you didn’t addressed my counter arguments? I guess you can’t I referred to them
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
No you didn’t. First, Josh said that the FIRST levels of DnD are boring because of the d20. That’s what he said. He said that advantage is a good way to fix that? No. See how you shape your arguments to fit your point of view? See how I don’t? Second: he speaks for himself as everyone does. He don’t speak for the others. His opinion is not an argument. Can you see the difference between that words?
Third: Larian didn’t release whole the game, so you don’t have a clue on what’s going to happen with the resting system. Me neither. Nobody does. Swen maybe will know in some months. Do you have a crystal ball?
My whole point regarding you is that you carry a lot of affirmative arguments where you carry no clear evidence at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Putting aside the fact that you and I seem to be at odds in other threads, I LOVE that you have taken the time and effort to put this together. Right now I do not have time to compose a response worthy of the post, Bu I will later. in the meantime. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
Good post.
1.) I'll emphasize your point you made in Dipping that: enemies should have access to the same standard abilities as us (obviously not our class-/race-specific abilities). If we can dip, the AI should dip. If we can jump to disengage, the enemy should be able to.
2.) Your fix to backstabbing is too complex imo. At the very least, it shouldn't provoke AoO and allow a save by the enemy for half damage. That is too punishing for the player. I suggest either:
-flanking (require ally on other side of enemy for Advantage). This adds some level of tactics/cost while preserving the ability to get Advantage
-OR flat, smaller bonus (+2) to hit. This reduces the bonus you get for freely circling around. (This is what Topgoon suggested)
-OR provokes AoO to get behind an enemy. This increases the cost (get AoO's or use disengage jump) to get such a powerful Advantage
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
No you didn’t. First, Josh said that the FIRST levels of DnD are boring because of the d20. That’s what he said. He said that advantage is a good way to fix that? No. See how you shape your arguments to fit your point of view? See how I don’t? Second: he speaks for himself as everyone does. He don’t speak for the others. His opinion is not an argument. Can you see the difference between that words?
Third: Larian didn’t release whole the game, so you don’t have a clue on what’s going to happen with the resting system. Me neither. Nobody does. Swen maybe will know in some months. Do you have a crystal ball?
My whole point regarding you is that you carry a lot of affirmative arguments where you carry no clear evidence at all.
Your opinion that misses are fun is not worth more than mine. If you think I should provide evidence to prove my thesis, maybe you should do the same. You say that players don't mind missing, but it doesn't agree with the opinions of people who design games professionally for years. At the same time, you have not written any argument as to why you disagree with it. If the opinion of a longtime game designer is not important, why should anyone care about the opinion of a few people on forums? After all, it's all just opinions. As for Josh's opinion, I meant this: Q: I'd wager that you're underestimating the fun of dodging and missing. It doesn't need to be as prominent as it was in Baldur's Gate-era missfests, but people like making characters that dodge all incoming damage. Also, the risk of doing no damage is fun. I think you're overestimating the fun of dodging and missing. I don't think most players find it particularly enjoyable, and it's exacerbated/amplified in games like the new XCOM where players are constantly in stunned disbelief at the RNG. If so then to Larian did not release whole the game, so you do not have a clue on what is going to happen with the combat. Do you see the absurdity of this argument? What are we to relate to other than the current state of the game? If none of the previous D&D games had a limited rest (in times when games were more niche) and even PoE2 gave up such mechanics, what is the chance that suddenly Larian decides to go against the tide and add something that will be unpopular among a large number of players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
No you didn’t. First, Josh said that the FIRST levels of DnD are boring because of the d20. That’s what he said. He said that advantage is a good way to fix that? No. See how you shape your arguments to fit your point of view? See how I don’t? Second: he speaks for himself as everyone does. He don’t speak for the others. His opinion is not an argument. Can you see the difference between that words?
Third: Larian didn’t release whole the game, so you don’t have a clue on what’s going to happen with the resting system. Me neither. Nobody does. Swen maybe will know in some months. Do you have a crystal ball?
My whole point regarding you is that you carry a lot of affirmative arguments where you carry no clear evidence at all.
Your opinion that misses are fun is not worth more than mine. If you think I should provide evidence to prove my thesis, maybe you should do the same. You say that players don't mind missing, but it doesn't agree with the opinions of people who design games professionally for years. At the same time, you have not written any argument as to why you disagree with it. If the opinion of a longtime game designer is not important, why should anyone care about the opinion of a few people on forums? After all, it's all just opinions. As for Josh's opinion, I meant this: Q: I'd wager that you're underestimating the fun of dodging and missing. It doesn't need to be as prominent as it was in Baldur's Gate-era missfests, but people like making characters that dodge all incoming damage. Also, the risk of doing no damage is fun. I think you're overestimating the fun of dodging and missing. I don't think most players find it particularly enjoyable, and it's exacerbated/amplified in games like the new XCOM where players are constantly in stunned disbelief at the RNG. If so then to Larian did not release whole the game, so you do not have a clue on what is going to happen with the combat. Do you see the absurdity of this argument? What are we to relate to other than the current state of the game? If none of the previous D&D games had a limited rest (in times when games were more niche) and even PoE2 gave up such mechanics, what is the chance that suddenly Larian decides to go against the tide and add something that will be unpopular among a large number of players. Dear god. I guess I understand now why you can’t understand the arguments of the people who are against the advantage system. You suffer from a “lack of logical thinking problemâ€. Let me explain what I’m talking: I like to miss more / you like to miss less. That’s our opinion. You say that people like to miss less. I say that you can’t speak for the others. That’s where you logic problem fails. You are comparing your attitude to mine. I’m just saying that you can’t speak for the others. No one is saying that your opinion don’t worth anything. On the contrary. I think it’s damn good to see disagreement in this world. This is the source of all critical thinking and there’s where new solutions flourishes. Now, you are not speaking YOUR opinions. You claim that you understand what the majority thinks. I’m not arrogant to think I know what the majority thinks. I hate advantage system. You might like it. We don’t know about the others. Deal with that for god sake.
Last edited by Sludge Khalid; 14/11/20 09:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Sludge Khalid: Cut out the snarkiness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
No you didn’t. First, Josh said that the FIRST levels of DnD are boring because of the d20. That’s what he said. He said that advantage is a good way to fix that? No. See how you shape your arguments to fit your point of view? See how I don’t? Second: he speaks for himself as everyone does. He don’t speak for the others. His opinion is not an argument. Can you see the difference between that words?
Third: Larian didn’t release whole the game, so you don’t have a clue on what’s going to happen with the resting system. Me neither. Nobody does. Swen maybe will know in some months. Do you have a crystal ball?
My whole point regarding you is that you carry a lot of affirmative arguments where you carry no clear evidence at all.
Your opinion that misses are fun is not worth more than mine. If you think I should provide evidence to prove my thesis, maybe you should do the same. You say that players don't mind missing, but it doesn't agree with the opinions of people who design games professionally for years. At the same time, you have not written any argument as to why you disagree with it. If the opinion of a longtime game designer is not important, why should anyone care about the opinion of a few people on forums? After all, it's all just opinions. As for Josh's opinion, I meant this: Q: I'd wager that you're underestimating the fun of dodging and missing. It doesn't need to be as prominent as it was in Baldur's Gate-era missfests, but people like making characters that dodge all incoming damage. Also, the risk of doing no damage is fun. I think you're overestimating the fun of dodging and missing. I don't think most players find it particularly enjoyable, and it's exacerbated/amplified in games like the new XCOM where players are constantly in stunned disbelief at the RNG. If so then to Larian did not release whole the game, so you do not have a clue on what is going to happen with the combat. Do you see the absurdity of this argument? What are we to relate to other than the current state of the game? If none of the previous D&D games had a limited rest (in times when games were more niche) and even PoE2 gave up such mechanics, what is the chance that suddenly Larian decides to go against the tide and add something that will be unpopular among a large number of players. Dear god. I guess I understand now why you can’t understand the arguments of the people who are against the advantage system. You suffer from a “lack of logical thinking problemâ€. Let me explain what I’m talking: I like to miss more / you like to miss less. That’s our opinion. You say that people like to miss less. I say that you can’t speak for the others. That’s where you logic problem fails. You are comparing your attitude to mine. I’m just saying that you can’t speak for the others. No one is saying that your opinion don’t worth anything. On the contrary. I think it’s damn good to see disagreement in this world. This is the source of all critical thinking and there’s where new solutions flourishes. Now, you are not speaking YOUR opinions. You claim that you understand what the majority thinks. I’m not arrogant to think I know what the majority thinks. I hate advantage system. You might like it. We don’t know about the others. Deal with that for god sake. I'd better finish this discussion, there is no point in carrying it on if all you doing is offend people you don't agree. It would be appropriate to at least refer to the post I wrote, but I think I am demanding too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
0.1 I don't see suggestions here. 0.2* What about implementing something like if you miss 3 times in a row the gods give your target truestrike. 1.1 There should also be a delay action so you can take your action at the end of the round after your companions have acted. 1.2 I think since shove and throw are offensive, they should be actions. Sneak attack - agree, but only once per round. 1.3 Agree 2.1 Don't care 2.2 Agree 3.1* I'd just remove it. 3.2* Ok 3.3 If you hold shift and move your mouse around the cursor shows the lighting conditions of that point as full, partial, or none. But what gives light and how much is very confusing. 3.4 I have never understood why prone gives disadvantage to ranged. They aren't moving anymore. 4* I don't think the statement that nearly everyone agrees that surfaces have a place in BG. I have seen numerous people say no. 4.1* With this logic, why wouldn't I always use it as an AoE? 4.2* Agree 4.3* I say remove it and add an option for fire potions to coat weapon like poison. 5.1 See 0.2 and while I love cut scenes, I dont like the D20 ones now and would HATE having a miss one. 5.2 Good idea, bad implementation. Just make a character expression or something. 5.3 Combat with lots of creatures is already painfully slow. I would hate this. 6.1* Agree, just realize some won't 6.2 I think we need more info, not less. Agree on cover and mobs should use it too. PS the *'s are items that are included in my suggested options: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=733462#Post733462
Last edited by RumRunner151; 14/11/20 11:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
1. What's wrong with accessing other companions' inventory? The only thing that changes is that you don't have to waste time dividing items between
characters and also to constantly transfer items from character to character because your main character no longer has a capacity.
This is a typical quality of life change that literally doesn't spoil the game. But there should be a distance limit right? Like within 3m you can share, but if your 30m away and at a different elevation it makes no sense. 4. Adding more cutscenes to a fight is a very bad idea and all it does is extend the fights.
These things are fun for the first few hours, but then they quickly get bored and waste your time. Could not agree more. What is the point of such restrictions? What does this add to the game apart from being another annoying and pointless mechanic?
Why force players to over-manage their inventory.
Already, you often have to transfer items from character to character because they are running out of load capacity.
This is a game, putting restrictions just because they are realistic without looking at how they negatively affect the game is silly. Then why not have one common inventory, which I woudnt be opposed to even though its unusual?
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Everything you said in the bonus action section other than the rogue actions and possibly dipping is an action, not a bonus action. Trying to make them bonus actions ruins the action economy and balance of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Thanks everyone for your feedback.
I really think it's easier to talk if we consider combats "as a whole" instead of talking about each individual problematics.
I'd like to say that this thread won't compile every "nuance" (I.E "I'd like climbing cost movement or I'd like climbing to be considered as a difficult terrain", or "Jump should cost movement or remain a bonus action").
I try to stay as objective as possible but of course if you think about issues leading you to a specific suggestion, share with us.
This thread was made for us to think all together about the best compromise between both worlds : D&D and Larian's mechanic...Because that's what Baldur's Gate 3 is.
0.2 The D20
As Topgoon suggest, it could probably be better to "cheat the dices" to reduce our ennemies AC instead of giving us all a bonus.
Not sure what could be the effect on the general balance of those suggestions.
I'll add this as another possible line of approach to solve the problematic.
Rumrunner suggest another approach : an "auto advantage" after a few miss.
I'd suggest something else : a % to hit increased a bit each time you miss (maybe +1). That's not really something I like, but it could make sense.
Both those are probably harder to implement, but I'll talk about it in the first post.
1.1 Actions + 1.2 Bonus action
A few of you react about the changes I made to "prone" and shove.
In D&D, shove is an action and not a bonus action but Larian want us to have "more" bonus action. I guess shove as a bonus action make sense to play with verticality and, it this suggestion's context as another "close combat technique" (shove to prone).
On the other hand I tried to toned down the effect of "prone", because it could be very powerfull to have an advantage related to a usual action bonus.
But there is malus to range attack in D&D... so I admit that I don't know what to think about it.
Shove as a bonus action looks fine, but if so... Shouldn't they toned down the effect of prone ? Or should it really be an action, meaning you won't be able to attack your target this turn ?
About Throw, I'll write them in "action" instead of bonus action. That's how it actually work and it's fine. That was more a mistake than a suggestion.
About Help, Changeling4's suggestion make sense but a few comments...
As you said, the 1hp cycle is an issue that's very boring. That's why I suggest an option to "give a potion to an ally". You use it as an action, and our companion can continue the combats... with more than 1 HP.
On the other hand, help as a bonus action to help in combats make sense to me. Like shove, it's another thing we can choose in combats as a bonus action. Not sure a lot of player would use it as an action.
But if that's a bonus action instead of an action... I guess it has to be toned down... What do you think about it ?
About changing our weapons as bonus action or free action;, the question is still open. Any thoughts ?
3.1 Backstab
I think Larian want to offer us more possibilities in combats with backstab to play with our % to hit.
The "concept" make sense to me, but it obviously can't be so powerfull and grants an easy advantage. It's also very a problem with the AI that won'tbe able to think much about "the best way to backstab".
It looks a few don't agree with my attempt. I guess a +2 (or +3, or ...) bonus for backstab is probably better.
I'll add this as "the main" possible approach of the game.
On the other hand, a few suggest that this was deleted... So 'ill add something about it.
3.3 Light
It looks very confusing for everyone so I guess we'll have to wait to go deeper.
4. Surfaces
I'll edit about AoE spells. I was talking about it but we don't have any clues what Larian plan for them.
Maybe AoE shouldn't always create surfaces. That was kind of "logical" to me but maybe it was a mistake to talk about that. I really don't know D&D's spells enough and we can't really test things in the game.
4.1 Cantrip
About cantrip, to answer Rumrunner, with tthat logic your choices would be :
- tagret a creature : 1D10 damages OR
- target the ground : (something like) 1D6 surfaces damages + burning if the target miss its saving throw / 50% of 1D6 damages and no burning if he suceed. Maybe the AoE could be a little bit increased so this is a relevant opporunities to damage a few target while target a creature could be more powerful and kill more efficiently.
4.3 Dipping
Maybe no more surfaces potions and only potions to coat weapons ? That could be good but I'm not sure Larian would enjoy removing such a feature.
5 Visual Improvement
I note that many of you are against "more cutscene". I don't know yet HOW, but I'll edit these points.
I'll also add something like " More verbiage for missing would be good. Wielding a melee weapon and being missed by a melee attack will occasionally replace the miss with a "parry". Wearing no armour, light armour or medium armour will pop an occasional "dodge". Wearing heaving armour or wielding a shield will sometimes pop a "block". More variety in miss animations would be nice (e.g raising your shield".
This could work in combinations of specific animations instead of "cutscenes".
6.1 Must Have
- We should be able to choose who our spells affect (i.e choose who are the targets of bless or the targets of sleep)
As Topgoon noticed, I give a very bad exemple because you cannot choose who's going to fall asleep in D&D. That's how it work in BG3; and that's fine.
I'll correct this.
- In combat, don’t allow us to access to other’s companions inventory
I'll nuance that, because it's a fact : some players don't like this, other like shared inventory, and other suggest being able to pick in other's inventory but with a range limit.
I guess everything make sense and is a matter of opinion.
I repeat but please, feel free to correct what I said, or to insist on thing and to explain WHY what you suggest is absolutely necessary.
This topic is a community topic.
Just keep in mind that Larian has a vision. We don't know much about it but we have to think about it.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 15/11/20 10:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Maximuuus, just wanted to say thanks for doing this thread, while i dont agree with all of the suggestions some are good and having everything in one place makes it much easier to address as a whole rather than individually.
Last edited by jayn23; 15/11/20 01:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Maximuuus, just wanted to say thanks for doing this thread, while i dont agree with all of the suggestions some are good and having everything in one place makes it much easier to address as a whole rather than individually. Feel free to add your comments on things you disagree Jayn. I'd love to see this thread as a "community workgroup". I tried to compile the main feedbacks and suggestions as much as possible to provides a framework around which to discuss, but I had to add some concrete elements from my own reflections... And maybe I'm wrong, or maybe my ideas are not the best for a reason or another. I am only one point of view, and having the point of view of others will allow us to find the best possible compromise between the different expectations of the community. Reasonable expectations of reasonable people can often match, and I'm glad to see that when you look at the whole, I can agree with people I didn't think I could 
Last edited by Maximuuus; 15/11/20 03:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I like the disengage and hide as they are. I like backstab and high ground as they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
I like the disengage and hide as they are. I like backstab and high ground as they are. how do you feel about the fact that this makes a lot of mechanics obsolete? (see the quote in 0.1 and the quote in 3.4) I mean that it is so easy to have advantages that the extra effort required by the many other possibilities makes them practically obsolete. About disengage as a bonus action, because according to your feedback that's what you mean : why should ennemies have AOO if we all can disengage as a bonus action ? (to backstab, see above... but also to flee) Should Larian remove ennemies AOO ? About hide as a bonus action I have to admit that I talked about it because I read A LOT of feedback saying that hide should only be a bonus action for rogue at lvl 2 (D&D). I didn',t myself played a lot with hide.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 15/11/20 04:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
0.2 The D20
I'm against a visible increase in chance to hit after misses. That will add confusion and imo feel cheap.
I think a more reasonable option is to have psuedo-randomness: the game remembers what your last 5(or 10 or 19) rolls were, and prevents you from rolling those values again. This will have a similar effect of ensuring hits after a few misses, but still allow for the the randomness of a d20.
I'm in favor of reducing enemy AC&STs for lower difficulty levels. Flat -6 for story, -4 for easy, -2 for normal, no modifier for hard, +2 for tactician (or something like that). Reducing both of these values is important for preserving the balance between attack vs ST spells, and will prevent the HP bloat that could come with increasing HP instead.
4.1 Cantrips
One of the major points about why cantrips shouldn't create surfaces is that players shouldn't get free damage (to preserve the strength of concentration). I suggest
-target an enemy for 1d10 fire damage (no burning)
-target a small surface area to set it on fire, enemies get STs to not catch on fire (1d6 damage for 2 turns). IMPORTANTLY, there is no automatic damage. The benefits of this option are a) you can possibly set fire to multiple enemies b)battlefield control c)possible damage over time
6.1 Must Haves
I strongly disagree with limiting access to others' inventories. In a game where inventory management is already a pain, I don't want to increase the amount of it I'll have to do.
IF we got a factor of 10x less consumables, then I'd be okay with limiting inventory access. But as it stands, I don't want to have to manage the dozens of scrolls, food, potions, arrows, in addition to all the useless junk inventory that comes with Larian games.
Shared inventory is also fine.
The rest of your list I agree with or don't have strong feelings. Keep up the good work of compiling and revising it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: May 2014
|
Very nice summary with detailed explanations, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Review of original post and my list of suggestions to include: 0.2) include difficulties (single most powerful feature to please them all): story +8, easy +4, normal +2, hard +0 (untested values) unconditionally to all d20 rolls or spell DCs for player characters; this will make it very hard to casual players to miss, e.g. AC15 creature in story mode would not be hit only on Nat 1 (95% hit chance without advantage; 99.75% with), in easy mode on 1-5 (75% w/o adv.; 93.75% with) Using these values globally has an effect on attacks, which Larian already tried to change, but also save based spells (most of spells) and dialogs # the above expands on your first point in 0.2 quite a bit with some numbers that on the surface look like might work well for both casual players (story / easy) and D&D fans (hard) 1.2) # Shove ideally would be an attack and not a (bonus) action; 5th level Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk & Ranger get extra attacks, so they should be able to shove two creatures or try to shove one creature twice # Noticed a bug: “You make a strength (Athletics) or dexterity (Acrobatics)†can only use strength (Athletics) and I think it’s how Larian implements it. Can use dexterity only when defending (i.e. you use force to shove, but you can either use force to cancel the effect or try to avoid it with dex). I would also include “The target must be no more than one size larger than you†to shoving, because it’s hard for me to imagine 30lb Halfling to be able to push 600lb Ogre. # Help as bonus action or reaction falls into the same problems as described by Isaac in 0.1) (free Advantage that kills many skills and abilities that cost full action and/or resources). For 3 minutes explanation of cool effect of Help as an action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vmc3ka7CsM2.1) Climbing in D&D normally costs twice as much as walking, so if you want to climb 30ft ladder, you have to use two turns (or Dash). Stopping in the middle of the ladder if you have no more movement should be a thing (potentialy not being able to use action like attack with a bow). There are special skills that make climbing faster, e.g. lvl 3 Rogue Thief: "you gain the ability to climb faster than normal; climbing no longer costs you extra movementâ€. 3.3) Yes, light seems buggy. 3.4) # Help gives advantage, so doesn’t stack with other things that give advantage # Attacking prone target (from 5ft distance) gives advantage, so doesn’t stack… (see my 0.2) suggestion) 5.1) This looks very good: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=702825#Post7028256.2) # Remove monetary cost of writing spells into book (cost is a thing in D&D, but I feel it doesn’t make sense with money devaluated by access to too many magical items and being able to steal thousands easily) # Don’t add monetary cost to spells (e.g. Familiar), unless the cost is very big that it would matter (same reason as above) Well done on collecting feedback. Keep it coming!
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
0.2 The D20
I'm against a visible increase in chance to hit after misses. That will add confusion and imo feel cheap.
I think a more reasonable option is to have psuedo-randomness: the game remembers what your last 5(or 10 or 19) rolls were, and prevents you from rolling those values again. This will have a similar effect of ensuring hits after a few misses, but still allow for the the randomness of a d20.
I'm in favor of reducing enemy AC&STs for lower difficulty levels. Flat -6 for story, -4 for easy, -2 for normal, no modifier for hard, +2 for tactician (or something like that). Reducing both of these values is important for preserving the balance between attack vs ST spells, and will prevent the HP bloat that could come with increasing HP instead.
4.1 Cantrips
One of the major points about why cantrips shouldn't create surfaces is that players shouldn't get free damage (to preserve the strength of concentration). I suggest
-target an enemy for 1d10 fire damage (no burning)
-target a small surface area to set it on fire, enemies get STs to not catch on fire (1d6 damage for 2 turns). IMPORTANTLY, there is no automatic damage. The benefits of this option are a) you can possibly set fire to multiple enemies b)battlefield control c)possible damage over time
6.1 Must Haves
I strongly disagree with limiting access to others' inventories. In a game where inventory management is already a pain, I don't want to increase the amount of it I'll have to do.
IF we got a factor of 10x less consumables, then I'd be okay with limiting inventory access. But as it stands, I don't want to have to manage the dozens of scrolls, food, potions, arrows, in addition to all the useless junk inventory that comes with Larian games.
Shared inventory is also fine.
The rest of your list I agree with or don't have strong feelings. Keep up the good work of compiling and revising it. i'll edit first post to add this and/ar adapt it with your suggestions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
|
What i would like to get at the current state of the Game is an Option to change the color and maybe even look of the Gear, what i mean is Change the Color of the Armor u are wearing so it suits ur personal Taste a bit more, as i am not sure if there are different armor options planed after all. Some of the Tieflings for example has very nice looking Armor Styles.
So while playing with others in the Future i would like to see different Styles and Colors for the Armor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Review of original post and my list of suggestions to include:
1.2)
# Shove ideally would be an attack and not a (bonus) action; 5th level Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk & Ranger get extra attacks, so they should be able to shove two creatures or try to shove one creature twice
# Noticed a bug: “You make a strength (Athletics) or dexterity (Acrobatics)†can only use strength (Athletics) and I think it’s how Larian implements it. Can use dexterity only when defending (i.e. you use force to shove, but you can either use force to cancel the effect or try to avoid it with dex). I would also include “The target must be no more than one size larger than you†to shoving, because it’s hard for me to imagine 30lb Halfling to be able to push 600lb Ogre. i'll edit about ennemie's size because you're totally right. About shove as an action I don't really know... I guess it's part of larian's vision to offer us "more" things to do. Personnaly I don't find this necessary but i'm not sure it breaks anything as a bonus action (everyone is able to shove, but your melee classes won't be able to do it more than once). # Help as bonus action or reaction falls into the same problems as described by Isaac in 0.1) (free Advantage that kills many skills and abilities that cost full action and/or resources). For 3 minutes explanation of cool effect of Help as an action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vmc3ka7CsMAbout Help I'm not sure it falls into the same problems. As you notice I imagine this as a bonus action, still to fit to Larian's vision that find we don't have enough things to do in D&D. According to me it's possible to have Help as a bonus action, but of course not as an advantage because it would exactly fall in the backstab/high ground problem. I'm not against such bonus but if there are reasonnable. According to me we shouldn't be able to have +5 (or advantage) such easily with a bonus action, but why not a +2 or +3 ?
2.1) Climbing in D&D normally costs twice as much as walking, so if you want to climb 30ft ladder, you have to use two turns (or Dash). Stopping in the middle of the ladder if you have no more movement should be a thing (potentialy not being able to use action like attack with a bow). There are special skills that make climbing faster, e.g. lvl 3 Rogue Thief: "you gain the ability to climb faster than normal; climbing no longer costs you extra movementâ€.
This could be cool but I really think it would be hard to implement. How to show players they're not going to be able to climb until the top of the ladder ? I think a : "you can" or "you can't" climb is easier, but i'm not a game dev. 5.1) This looks very good: https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=702825#Post7028256.2) # Remove monetary cost of writing spells into book (cost is a thing in D&D, but I feel it doesn’t make sense with money devaluated by access to too many magical items and being able to steal thousands easily) # Don’t add monetary cost to spells (e.g. Familiar), unless the cost is very big that it would matter (same reason as above) I'll edit and add something about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
What i would like to get at the current state of the Game is an Option to change the color and maybe even look of the Gear, what i mean is Change the Color of the Armor u are wearing so it suits ur personal Taste a bit more, as i am not sure if there are different armor options planed after all. Some of the Tieflings for example has very nice looking Armor Styles.
So while playing with others in the Future i would like to see different Styles and Colors for the Armor. That's a great suggestion I already wrote on another list (not a public one). I'll talk with the moderation, maybe it could be usefull to have a huge list that is not ONLY about combats.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 17/11/20 10:43 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Review of original post and my list of suggestions to include:
1.2)
# Shove ideally would be an attack and not a (bonus) action; 5th level Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk & Ranger get extra attacks, so they should be able to shove two creatures or try to shove one creature twice
# Noticed a bug: “You make a strength (Athletics) or dexterity (Acrobatics)†can only use strength (Athletics) and I think it’s how Larian implements it. Can use dexterity only when defending (i.e. you use force to shove, but you can either use force to cancel the effect or try to avoid it with dex). I would also include “The target must be no more than one size larger than you†to shoving, because it’s hard for me to imagine 30lb Halfling to be able to push 600lb Ogre. i'll edit about ennemie's size because you're totally right. About shove as an action I don't really know... I guess it's part of larian's vision to offer us "more" things to do. Personnaly I don't find this necessary but i'm not sure it breaks anything as a bonus action (everyone is able to shove, but your melee classes won't be able to do it more than once). # Help as bonus action or reaction falls into the same problems as described by Isaac in 0.1) (free Advantage that kills many skills and abilities that cost full action and/or resources). For 3 minutes explanation of cool effect of Help as an action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vmc3ka7CsMAbout Help I'm not sure it falls into the same problems. As you notice I imagine this as a bonus action, still to fit to Larian's vision that find we don't have enough things to do in D&D. According to me it's possible to have Help as a bonus action, but of course not as an advantage because it would exactly fall in the backstab/high ground problem. I'm not against such bonus but if there are reasonnable. According to me we shouldn't be able to have +5 (or advantage) such easily with a bonus action, but why not a +2 or +3 ? By itself it doesn't break anything to give a small bonus, but when you have free +2 bonus from help, +2 bonus from height and +2 bonus from something else, which all stack, this is already much better than advantage, which is on average +5, but can sometimes be +0, leading to miss. +6 "never" misses. Difficulty levels are simpler for casual players to understand and much easier to implement than adding small bonuses to many different things. (This is where we fight for people who don't like missing, not miss as much, right?) Also (a minor detail) there is a Rogue Mastermind subclass, which gets Help as bonus action at level 3. Subclasses are very easy to implement, they give only a few bonuses, so bonus Help for everyone makes this one less useful. Larian's vision might be distorted by many things right now, e.g. we only get max 4 lvl and there are a lot of things to do later; battle feeling slow due to AI thinking (I did 1 thing and now I have to wait a few minutes) and maybe player having hard time deciding which one thing to do during their turn (UI not focused on helping them, but this is a different topic); or BG3 lvl 1 Wizard having many things to do, because you can currently rest after every battle vs BG3 lvl 1 Fighter, who clicks on enemies or D&D lvl 1 Wizard, who throws Fire Bolt every turn, because they either already cast Sleep and Magic Missle in previous battle or wisely wait for a tougher battle to come I thought Larian's vision was "Gather your party" (or maybe they changed to "It's party time" currently displayed on baldursgate3.game). No single (especially low level) character should feel strong. It's the party working together that makes them strong. Solutions might be simpler than trying to change balance. Help might be a cool animation that distracts NPC until Lae'zel delivers the killing blow. Like in sports, if you merely (as your full action) pass the ball to an attacker for them to score a goal, is it nothing? D&D is most of the time about doing one thing during one turn, everything else is a bonus, special situation action... and I have absolutely no objections is Larian wants to abandon D&D and give everybody two or more actions every turn. How they try to do it now doesn't seem right. They give abilities that were designed for certain class or subclass to everybody for free. Strong fighters can jump in, shove enemy to the ground and use this advantage to deal a critical strike. Rogues can strike unnoticed and hide before enemy can strike back. Mages can... FIREBALL! (for it's the only thing that they shall do) or die a horrible death when surrounded by 3 goblins. Let's make battles epic by giving every class distinct features and not by giving everybody same (quite boring by themselves) actions that are supposed to make certain classes shine.
2.1) Climbing in D&D normally costs twice as much as walking, so if you want to climb 30ft ladder, you have to use two turns (or Dash). Stopping in the middle of the ladder if you have no more movement should be a thing (potentialy not being able to use action like attack with a bow). There are special skills that make climbing faster, e.g. lvl 3 Rogue Thief: "you gain the ability to climb faster than normal; climbing no longer costs you extra movementâ€.
This could be cool but I really think it would be hard to implement. How to show players they're not going to be able to climb until the top of the ladder ? I think a : "you can" or "you can't" climb is easier, but i'm not a game dev. I like to say in programming nothing is impossible. Wouldn't it be also cool if Imp familiar could really fly, 15ft above the ground, away from enemy melee attacks and not merely use "jump" spell?
Last edited by mg666; 17/11/20 12:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
I think there are 2 things to consider : 1) People don't like to miss. Something has to be done, and the AC/ST reduction is probably the easiest way to solve this. According to me this is not really a problem because there are many easy solutions. Not sure it has to be the only things to determine the difficulty levels, but that could be a part of it, or an option, or something like that. 2) Larian want us to have an action and a bonus action at each turn. I really don't see them remove this because they talked a lot about it and because I think lots of players like that. Being able to do more things during our turn is cool, even if RAW would be good to me. About the second point, they picked in D&D's "usual combats actions" to create their new bonus actions and I don't think it's a bad idea (except for disengage and maybe for hide). With that in mind I tried to pick more D&D actions and toned them down because they would become bonus action. According to me in a strategy game, it could be fine to have more or less options to increase our % to hit and it could also be cool if you could "stack" them... That's what good players will try to do and how players would be able to increase their combat skills : playing, trying, using differents synergies and strategies to optimize their damages and/or their % to hit. I really think it could increase a lot the depths of combats AND give us more things to do and more way to deal with combats. But obviously, it has to have consequences and it has to be less efficient than advantages. That's what I tried to do after reading many feedback/suggestion. If someone use Help and your archer is higher, the archer has +4 to attack rolls. If someone use Help and you backtab your ennemy, you have +4 to your attack rolls. If someone shove it's opponent, higher archers have +0 while you have +2, or +4 if you shove, move and bacstab. Maybe the value could be reduced so you have maximum +2 or +3 (+ an advantage if you're able to have one ?) There's probably things I didn't think about, and there are also many things I don't know about D&D. But then what to do ? D&D is most of the time about doing one thing during one turn, everything else is a bonus, special situation action... and I have absolutely no objections is Larian wants to abandon D&D and give everybody two or more actions every turn. How they try to do it now doesn't seem right. What would you suggest ? RAW but with 2 actions per turn for eveyone ?
Last edited by Maximuuus; 17/11/20 10:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Not sure we should ask questions like that in this thread, but to answer with another question: what's the difference between 2 turns with 1 action per turn compared to 1 turn with 2 actions? I thought you were browsing through other threads, looking for combat related stuff and integrating what majority thinks would be good. For me personally the most important thing about battles is that they are varied and always challenging (on hard difficulty level). It would be lovely if it was close to true D&D (while still ignoring a lot of rules from D&D like for example limited ability to cast spells with no free hand, or spell components, or changing weapons in the middle of the fight, because these rules - admittedly quite fun to work with in tabletop - would not make the game better), not only because that's what I know & like, but also because it could be used as an introduction tool to tabletop. If it's a different system, maybe even better. Larian's basic understanding on what turn is seems incorrect. To me it's an abstract representation on what happens in real time. For example in D&D during your turn other characters do stuff like attacks of oportunity, reactions and performing readied action, but that's not everything. Taking backstabbing as an example: when you move around (or jump through /rolling my eyes/) enemy, they are not frozen in time. They either move to face you all the time (default D&D rules: everybody is aware of everything happening around them - simple but effective), they use this opportunity to attack before you move out of their sight (optional facing rules that probably not many people use, and would be hard to explain in BG3 if implemented fully, e.g. why is my AC lower by 2 when I'm backstabbed while holding shield?) or they might get flanked if two of your characters are on the opposite side (most often used optional rule, but bashed by many, because it gives advantage too easily). D&D or not, combat in BG3 has currently a lot of problems. In current state of the game, there are hundreds if not thousands little bugs not even related to what system is used. Here is a copy-paste of Redzone9000's rant on discord from a couple of hours ago: in my opinion .. the biggest problem right now is how the tactical combat is playing out
enemies seem to get attack of opportunities on us when they should NOT have, it happens when you literally just ran up to attack and enemy sometimes too, and the worst part about this is that your character started to swing their weapon but enemies reaction CANCELLED your attack animation so your character never even got their attack off, but the game still used up your Action for that turn
and i think i know what's causing it too
there's an invisible "grid" that we're playing on
whenever your character tries to attack enemies, your character wants to MOVE before they attack a lot of times when they don't even need to move - the same thing happens when you try to loot boxes, your character decides they want to move and stand in a different position before they loot - for no apparent reason - i think they're trying to line up with the invisible grid
same thing happens when you run up to enemies and combat happens, your character often turns their BACK on enemies for no apparent reason right when combat starts, giving them advantage on you if they run up and melee
your character was trying to line up to the invisible grid
whenever you try to move your character they always want to move along this invisible grid, and this is fine, but a lot of times you try to attack, or jump, and your stupid character wants to MOVE before doing it when they shouldn't, they're in a perfectly fine position to jump or use an attack but they insist on moving before they do it, which gives enemies an attack of opportunity
and even when your character doesn't appear to need to move before doing it, enemies STILL often get an opportunity attack on you for no apparent reason AND it takes away your character's action for that turn because of animation cancelling.
honestly i'd rather have grid squares with simplified movement and positioning instead, that WORKS RIGHT instead of the current system with it's flaws
AOE's from spells like grease, thunderwave etc, don't work how they should.
it's supposed to be an omnidirectional pushback in a 15' cube originating from you.
instead, it's only 1 direction and it isn't a "wall" instead it's more like a cleave attack (if enemies are even SLIGHTLY above or below you, they won't get hit by the AoE)
the same issue with grease or any other ground effect.. if you cast it on an area of steps - the grease will only appear on ONE step - none of the steps that are slightly above or slightly below the casted location will have any grease on them
so areas with uneven ground or any steps at all, grease doesn't work properly not will any other ground effect or aoe effect, they're all like 2d surface effects
many times, when you want to try to use thunderwave to push enemies, it'll be on some steps - when like 1 enemy is right in front of you on the same step, another enemy is right behind him on the next step down (but the spell should totally hit him and it doesn't, it only hits the one on the same "plane" as you)
and this is just one of the MANY thing that make warlock and wiz really inferior to fighters rogues and rangers right now
i've put all of this in feedback, but not all of it in bug reports
the thing is, feedback isn't for reporting bugs, and the bug report system they use is a pain in the ass so no i only report major bugs
also, there's no way the developers aren't aware of these issues
i'm 100% they know about them, whether they decide to put the work in to polish them up is another question, they might be more focused on other bugs or content
the only class i play anymore is rogue btw
every other class pales in comparison in current bg3 version
m4joraYesterday at 1:50 PM
Dont assume they test all kind of random stuff. Im quite sure there is a lot of things they are not aware of.
I used grease a lot for example. Just not on stairs, so i had no idea it was like that. So maybe it s the same for the testing team
Redzone9000Yesterday at 1:50 PM
the fact that hunter's mark and hex don't stack is also a giant oversight
if you have two players using hex on same enemy, the original hex gets removed, concentration broken, and spell slot lost (no re-apply)
same happens with hunter's mark
so in multiplayer, 2 players using warlock (or like, cleric who grabbed warlock initiate at lvl 4 for some extra damage), or 2 players using ranger's doesn't really work
hex and hunter's mark should be stackable if multiple players use them on same enemy
(only the caster of hex/hunter's mark should do bonus damage against that target, but they should both be able to apply their hex or hunter's mark to the same enemy so that they both can do the damage they're supposed to be able to deal to the target)
also, the visibility of hex could be improved. hunter's mark puts a nice big red floaty orb above them so it's easy to see which target has your hunter's mark.. hex on the other hand could use a similar floating icon so that it's easier for warlock to track which enemy they hexed.. it'd also be nice if players had an option to customize what their hex / hunter's mark looks like when it's above enemies head too, so that multiple warlocks or multiple rangers' could have an easier time tracking which enemy they've got the debuff on
for this reason, when i play multiplayer sessions, i try to discourage players from using 2 rangers or 2 warlocks
The above is only a small potion of what we probably might agree are pure bugs.
Last edited by mg666; 19/11/20 12:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
I thought you were browsing through other threads, looking for combat related stuff and integrating what majority thinks would be good.
That's what I did, but I tried to compile this into something that should work. Here's the list I made a few days ago and that was one of my starting point.
1) DAY / NIGHT CYCLE AND METEO EFFETCS
Feedback
• D/N cycle would increase immersion and consistency of the world.
• D/N cycle would increase the variety of environment
• D/N cycle would increase gameplay possibilities (i.e stealth)
Suggestions
• Dynamic D/N (i.e night is falling while the player’s playing)
• Static D/N (i.e cutscene after a while to show that the night has fall)
2) D&D BALANCE AND EXPERIENCE IN COMBATS
Feedback
• The combats are balanced around many non-D&D mechanics
• The combats are very hard if you “stick†to D&D, very easy if you “cheese†the game
• The balance between classes is not good – some game mechanics smooth the differences between classes while others give the feeling of useless classes (i.e everyone can use magic, everyone can use powerfull action/bonus action, the “tank†role is useless, …)
• The Advantage / Disadvantage system defined every encounter. (i.e King of the hill)
• Combat mechanics are not enough tactical and too much mechanical (i.e jumping to avoid every AOO, higher to get advantage, dip to increase damages, …)
• HP Bloat / AC decrease has many consequences
The balance of the spells is strongly altered
The flow of combat is altered
Suggestions
• Scrolls shouldn’t be usable by anyone (D&D rules)
• Attack of Opportunity should work properly. Jump shoudn’t avoir AOO. Disengage shouldn’t be an action bonus
• Reactions should work like in D&D
• Advantage / Disadvantage shouldn’t be used that much. There are too powerfull and defined combats too much. Something like in exemple a +3 bonus to attack rolls if you’re higher instead of advantage could be better. It’s still a bonus to be higher but it’s not that powerfull.
• It shouldn’t be that easy to backstab. Jump shoudn’t avoid AOO or shouldn’t be possible while engaged.
• Sneak attack should work like in D&D. Maybe it shouldn’t be a specific action. It should auto apply to normal attacks when necessary (In exemple AOO).
• No more HP Bloat / AC reduction. Maybe the difficulty could be balanced around something else (number of enemies, enemies damages,…). This would lead to a more D&D experience and would remove many balance issues.
• Cantrips shouldn’t always create surfaces. There are many AoE spells at higher levels. Maybe they could create surfaces only if they player target the ground and a “normal†D&D attack when we target an enemies => tactical possibilities increased
• Action / Bonus action rework
o Disengage should be a specific action (bonus action for rogue lvl.2)
o Jump shouldn’t be an action like in D&D. It should only be related to speed/movements. It shouldn’t avoid AOO or add an acrobatics checks to avoid them.
o Jump shouldn’t allow us to move further (sometimes we can reach targets for a melee attack we wouldn’t be able to if we only move).
o Ready action should be in the game
o Shove should be 2 bonus actions (shove to push, shove to prone)
o Help should use a potion / scrolls / spells to avoid the conscious/unconscious loops (bonus action for rogue lvl.2)
o Dash should become a bonus action for rogue lvl.2 instead of a new bonus action
o Maybe a new tactical bonus action could be added to improve the too easy backstab mechanic (to use something else than the easy jump/disengage bonus action). In exemple a new bonus action like a “close combat technique†to flip our position with the opponent (with a specific animation).
o Hide should be an action for everyone instead of a bonus action (bonus action for rogue lvl.2)
o Dodge should be in the game
• Dip shouldn’t be that easy. Maybe it shouldn’t be possible in combats (candle + dip). Maybe it should require component (actually immersion breaking)
• Tone Down Enemy 'Special' Attack. Follow the MM for abilities and skills (Usual gnolls can’t attack multi times, minotaurs can't jump that far and prove everyone.…). Less surfaces arrows surfaces, potions surfaces, spells surfaces.
3) CHARACTER CREATION
Feedback
• Not enough variety to custom our characters
• Not very friendly user, especially for newcomers
• Player’s are often named “Tavâ€
Suggestions
• Add more options to custom our characters (more bodies, size, faces, hairs, scars,,…)
• Add dyes (short references to BG1/2)
• Add custom starting equipment
• Add a portrait builder / Stylized Party Portraits (short reference to BG1/2)
• Add background options for custom characters
• Roll dice option instead of only the point buy mechanics.
• Better tutorial / Show the evolution of the classes for newcomers
• Add at least every PHB races / classes / subclasses
• More logical order in the windows (see I.G).
• Add a name generator
• Don’t give a name to our characters (Tav). Add a message if we forget to gave him one.
• Give us the opportunity to create a full custom party.
4) USER INTERFACE
Feedback
• The UI is not very personal
• The UI is not friendly user
• Lack of information to understand the game
Suggestions
• Give the UI more of a pen and paper feel... more rustic fonts, paper/parchment backgrounds, …
• Improve the character’s sheet (proficiencies, bonuses like fighting style, AC and DD details, warlock’s invocations and effects, …)
• Better minimap
o Option to hide it
o Better understanding of the direction (N/E/S/W)
o Better markers (i.e quest markers)
o Better UI (too intrusive, not enough personal)
• Better map
o Better resolution
o Maybe path shouldn’t be that visible (secret path are obvious + we aren’t able to see the map without “utility layersâ€)
o Show entrance/exit
o Show maps of other levels (verticality)
o Ability to create custom markers
o …
• Inventory / Equipement UI complicated and not friendly user.
Sometimes we equip he wrong character because we have another character selected.
• Highlighting loot / interaction items (i.e perception check or exploration)
o In exemple players often look for what their perception checks just discover
o Highlight ALL objects
• Improve the “loot†UI. Probably a place holder.
• Trade screen improvement
o Why do we have an option to trade and another barter? It add no value to the game.
o Why can’t we trade with only one character?
o Why can’t we auto sell wares ?
o Why can’t we “select†items and “sell all� (instead of double clicking on every items)
• UI of the most important menu of the game should be improved. (spells/character sheet/inventory/…)
o These actually looks more like maps filters than important menu. They should have a better place and be more visible on the UI.
• Hotbars are a mess => separate by item type (spells / items / skills / …)
o Separate items by types (spells / items / skills / Action / Bonus action / …)
o Something to do about spell levels not to have hot bar full of the same spells
o Games exemples : Baldur’s gate, Pillars of Eternity, Pathfinder, Solasta, …
• Improve inventory for a better/easier management
o Sort button more visible
o Add “bags†or “specific compartments†inside the inventory to auto sort items (i.e a gem bag, scroll bag, food bags, quiver, potions,…)
o Maybe create a shared inventory ?
• Books UI rework
o Better font, better text integration
o Letters / Sheet / Books. Everything is a book when we read them.
• Spells duration in spell description, range, target effect and damage, if it does damage or save… Actually hard to understand both for newcomers and non D&D nerds.
• “Improve UI when you have to select “i.e bestow curseâ€. We actually have 6 times the same icons. Have to check everything all the time to find the good one.
A specific icon for each abilities could be cool and could be added elsewhere in the game (i.e for checks during dialogs)
• Weapon comparison strange in the trade UI (check IG)
• Improve the journal. Better font, ability to hide completed quests,
• The UI for characters / inventory / equipment feels redundant. This could probably be consolidated.
• Unclear status effects on spells. (“blind = blindness. Blindness =?)
• Better way to show advantages / Disadvantage (see solasta, marker + / - on the cursor when the cursor is on an enemy + popup to explain bonuses/maluses)
• Item descriptions: make item descriptions longer, more immersive and contain a fair chunk of lore, like it was in BG1 and BG2.
5) DIALOGS
Feedback
• Dialogs feels unnatural
• Dialogs could improve gameplay, spells utility and resources management
• Skills could improve party management / party buildings
Suggestions
• We should be able to choose who’s talking during dialogs.
o Everyone should be involved and we should be able to choose who’s using his/her skills and/or the most able person should use the selected skill.
• We should be able to use some spells during dialogs (i.e animal friendship, charm person, friends, …)
• Dice rolls improvement. It’s actually hard to understand how proficiencies / modifiers are important when we’re using skills. It should probably work like in D&D rather than reducing the DD.
• Spacebar shouldn’t choose an answer. It should only skip dialogs.
• Skills checks should appear in the log
• An option to hide dice rolls during dialogs should be implemented. Rolls would only appear in the log and it could auto-reroll if our characters is able to.
• No cinematics for “short/one line†dialogs (a popup with the text is ok).
• Dialogs should appear in the log
6) PARTY SIZE
Feedback
• Lack of variety in parties composition
• Less “usual†classes won’t be used that mush by many players (monk, bards, druids, barbarians,…)
• Many players are fine with 4, many aren’t (+- 55/45 according to polls / survey on reddit and Larian’s forum). Fine with something doesn’t mean they aren’t with more companions.
• Increased party size would increase the replay value (increased party size + more companions increase the possibilities)
• …
Suggestions
• The compromise: party size of 5
• A party of 6 (reference to the old BG) and a share XP system for those who don’t want to manage 6 characters. That way everyone can play how it want to and the “lone wolf†skills aren’t necessary.
7) ITEMS
Feedback
• Items and inventory management are very complicated
• Items looks not enough unique, usefull and rewarding
• It’s very hard to understand what items are usefull and what items are useless
• Loot takes too much time, the exploration / research should be easier
• Many things don’t really feel D&D and FR
Suggestions
• Reduce / Remove (the number of) “misc.†items. They don’t add any value to the game except that it’s sometimes hard to select / choose the usefull items (candles, plates, fork, plates, cup, bones, skulls, …)
• Too many scrolls in such locations (immersion)
• Reduce item types
o Too many food types. Maybe just “rations�
o Too many misc. to sell… Maybe just gold / jewels / gemstones and common items (weapons, armor, potions,…)?
• Too many containers that are often empty
o Don’t let us open empty containers
o Don’t put so many misc. items in containers
• Items that allow us to use a spell should have a limited number of charges per rest. This would lead to more meaningful choices.
• Special items are often wtf according to D&D / FR and often useless. Many of them fit a very specific use and want to define the gameplay rather than being “better itemsâ€. There are too many of them and they do not feel really special.
Exemple :
- If you heal someone, the target has poison damages on his weapons
- If you’re on a surface, you deal more elemental damages of that type of surface
- If you wear that ring, you deal radiant damage to these targets but these others creatures deals you radiant damages
 This is not very D&D / FR
o Add usual magical items (see Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 in exemple)
• Implement identify spells + detect magic
• Nothing really interesting to buy
8) CAMP ACTIVITY
9) REST SYSTEM
10) SURFACES
Feedback
• Surfaces are great but they aren’t part of D&D and shouldn’t be such a part of BG3 (reduction rather than removal). They are actually of part of nearly every combats and altered a lot how D&D works.
• Immersion breaking, it’s not such a component of D&D nor of the reality of the FR.
Suggestion
• Reduce the number of surface items the enemies have (potions, arrows, …)
• Cantrip shouldn’t always create surface. Only AoE spells should.
o Cantrip could be use to create surface if the player target the ground or to deal damages and effects like in D&D if we target an enemy. This could increase the tactical value of the game.
• Reduce the number of barrels and/or less “obvious†barrels (in enemies feet, …)
• Rework dipping so it require component and so we can’t do it as easy in combats.
• Maybe implement surface as tactical choices instead of an automatic mechanic.
o In exemple fire could require Dext saving throw each turn to avoid a -2 AC malus.
• Saving throws for surfaces / Ability and/or skills checks on surfaces
11) CHAIN MECHANIC
Feedback
This is something nearly everyone agree : this mechanic is complicated, slow and many many mistakes are done because of it.
It’s slow when we have to chain/unchain for a single action, or when we want to create other groups, …
Companions are moving all the time, in surfaces or traps, they block the path when i.e we have to jump, …
Suggestion
• Get rid of this mechanic and use a usual CPRG party control system.
12) COMPANIONS
13) OTHER COMBATS RELATED MECHANICS
Feedback / Suggestion
- Melee attack VS prone target isn’t properly implemented.
- Game should let player to use versatile weapons 1H or 2H regardless whether their offhand is empty or not
- Longbows, shortbows, and crossbows all having the same range doesn't make sense. Longbows and crossbows should have a longer range than shortbows. Proper range attack for everything (spells included). Adjust combat ranges.
- We should be able to choose who our spells affect (i.e choose who’s the targets of bless or the targets of sleep)
- %hit and/or informations about creatures shouldn’t be visible at the first time we encounter them. Something like a growing bestiary could be cool.
- Better combat animation so it looks less static and a little bit “realâ€.
- Replace the word “miss†or find something to bring miss less boring. A beautiful animation could be enough.
- Better critical cutscene (camera angle, too fast at the moment, …)
- Speed up combats (“all creatures moving at the same time?â€, better implementation of D&D rules? i.e Solasta’s combats looks faster).
- In combat, don’t allow us to access to other’s companions inventory
- Make Ladders / Climbing cost movement
- Food shouldn’t be an alternative to healing potions or spells. We certainly shouldn’t be able to eat food during combat and maybe we shouldn’t find so much food. HP management is too easy.
14) WORLD IMMERSION
Feedback / Suggestion
- Increase the feeling we’re in a living world with events while playing, less “static world†(i.e wolf in the goblin camp after we killed them all, random encounters while travelling to camp, …)
- Add some sort of fog of war.
- Add Random encounters, maybe at specific time or during specific travel (could be mixed with the fast travel through worldmap suggestion).
- Less obvious barrels (in enemies feet, in unappropriated locations breach, underdark, villages, old ruins, … )
- Use the worldmap for fast travel rather than TP runes and create a camp location on the worldmap. Fast travel become a travel that takes times and not a TP anymore.
- Fast travel shouldn’t be possible from everywhere
- Failed check shouldn’t be visible (perception => you know you missed something)
- Animation for normal action (jump/…) are too “Marvel-likeâ€
- Rapiers and other 1H weapons are usually not carried on the back when sheathed, but on your side.
- Too many locations on “small†maps. Divide the maps in smaller maps to give the feeling of travel. Inconsistency due to the fact that everything is really close (goblins don’t find druids grove, they had an encounter in “the forestâ€, which is not really one)
15) OTHER D&D MISSING STUFF / FEEDBACK
Feedback / Suggestion
- Improve mage hand
- Missing the cleric spell Spiritual Hammer, add more D&D spells.
- Rogue need “expertiseâ€
- Add a button to stop concentration
- Druids that shapechange should not die after shapechanging. If they take damage that reduces hp to 0, they revert to normal form and take any remaining damage to their actual hp.
- Rogue shouldn’t have “2 bonus actionâ€. Actions should become bonus actions (related to action / bonus action changes, see chapter 2).
- Spell preparation : according to PHB, spell-preparing classes can only prepare spells during a long rest..
- Spellcasting frequency: according to PHB, casting two spells per turn should not be possible. Bonus Action Spells can only be combined with a cantrip (for instance, you cannot cast Bless and Healing Word on your turn)
16) EXPLORATION / PARTY CONTROL IMPROVEMENT
Feedback / Suggestion
- Add party formations (need to get rid of the chain mechanic)
- Add a “Sneak All†button
- Add an “Auto jump†for companions in real time mode
- Add a “Group all†/ “Disband all†button
- Safe jump => we should know when we’re going to prone
- Keybind for jump / stealth
17) STORY
18) OTHER
Feedback / Suggestion
- Allow portrait targeting
- Unconscious / rez mechanic… Allow us to give a potion to unconscious companions. Death seems not really important because scrolls are cheap and we can bring many of them with us and everyone can use these scrolls. There is not enough consequences to death.
- Saved games per character
- More auto save
- Camera improvement
- Improve the pickpocket system. Too easy.
- Add an encyclopedy and / or better tutorials
- Units able to fly can’t really fly and aren’t often allowed to go to higher locations.
- Hide helmet option
- We get out of inventory when reading books.
- Add “Sell from camp storage†/ “Sell all waresâ€
- Better party pathfinding (they actually move all the time and cross surfaces)
- Add more XP for non combat resolutions, like i.e if you success some checks or avoid combats with diplomacy.
- Backgrounds should be story-impactful, not only mechanical.
- treat familiars as enteties, not spell effects that go away on rest
- lockpicking, perception checks etc… should appear in the log.
- hide or drop altogether the % to hit indicators
- Sheathed shields should be visible on the back / Quiver and bow should also be visible / See every weapon equipped on our character. Weapons actually disappear when we’re changing them.
- Add some crafting. Artificers can craft A LOT of stuff in 5th ed. (arrows, potions, poisons, grenades, armour, etc.)
- Daggers, rapiers and shortswords are piercing weapons not slashing
- Better reaction when we discover a trap (everyone should stop moving)
- Add the cover mechanic of D&D
- Dash shouldn’t break invisibility
- Holding ALT and clicking a container in the world should open the container, not put the container in my inventory.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 19/11/20 11:52 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
|
As a Note, Longswords are Versatile and even list the one-handed and two-handed properties but players can't pick which one. It defaults to two-handed unless a shield is equipped leaving it impossible to dual wield.
Also for the Ranger class in BG3, the class is listed as having martial weapon proficiency but upon equipping a martial weapon, like the longsword you acquire during the tutorial, you receive no stat bonuses for the weapon. This means that even thought the class has the proficiency listed, it isn't actually being applied in game.
Also the entire system for how combat works could use a better description and explanation in the tutorial. What all factors into hitting and dealing damage? At 100% chance to hit on an elevated ground above an enemy, should in theory, hit guaranteed. Instead I've noticed the game has a chance to Critical Miss, which implies that dice are coming into play. I love that the dice rolls are being implemented and used, but if they are going to be then they should be done as 5e has it. The system is already built for it. There is absolutely no reason for percentiles to hit if the dice are being rolled. Also showing the roll, just like in ability checks, would be a major boon. This would allow the player to see what exactly is going on. Instead of percentiles you could just give the player advantage or disadvantage in certain situations and set ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
|
SURPRISE ROUNDS. I did not see this specifically enumerated in the compilation post, so here's a suggestion to include it. Surprise round mechanics are currently unpredictable - sometimes when you engage from stealth your party will each get their chance to strike before joining the initiative order. Sometimes on the very 1st attack initiative is rolled, regardless of being in stealth or visible to enemies, resulting in a sort of "Reverse Surprise Round". This needs to get worked on.
Another problem with combat mechanics & initiative - when two or more characters "share" an initiative value, and you end the turn, it sometimes skips characters that have not yet taken their action. This needs to be reworked so that each click of the End Turn button ONLY ends the turn for the active character, not the next character who just happens to be on the same initiative value. This has resulted in me manually selecting the characters who share an initiative to make sure they all take their actions, which is unnecessary and wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
0.2 The D20
The D20 is another thing we talked a lot on the forum.
Missing to much is not fun for many players.
There are lots of solution to increase our % to hit in D&D, but there’s also often a D20 that could be very unfair.
We have to find a good compromise between the balance of D&D and the D20… and what many don’t want to experience in a video game: missing very often.
Community suggestions :
- An option that could add a +â€x†bonus to every D20, in every situation whatever the check could be something that keep D&D’s balance safe while at the same time would increase our % to hit.
This could be a good way to customize our experience. From a +0 for a more authentic D&D experience to a +5 to increase our overall % to hit by +25% in any situations if needed.
- An option to reduce the ennemy's AC. (EDIT 15/11/20)
- An "auto advantages" after 3 miss. (EDIT 15/11/20)
- Something like "+5% to hit" each time a character miss. (EDIT 15/11/20)
With this mechanics and what is suggested below, we could have many possibilities to increase our control on the game.
This should be totally optional and not a part of the “normal†game mode. Completely against all these suggestions, expecially auto-increse to hit chance after miss (seriously?). Missing is not fun but is part of any D&D game ever released, expecially on early game. Hell, of any percentage-based rpg ever existed. That's why sources of advantage are an important gameplay component: to turn the odds in your favour. What's the point then of flanking, blinding your enemies, bless your party, using the help action. Eventually with all attacks hitting devs will inflate monster HP to prevent monsters from being ganked to death, because attacks can and will carry powerful riders on top of them, like smites or stuns to disable an opponent (and why not, increase spell chances because is not fun to lose a spell slot o special feature because the monster saved). Before we know we are going to spend more time grinding huge health bars with the same amount of resources Im up for a general decrease to monster AC or flat increase to hit chance in an Easy or Story difficult level, but Normal mode should stay as D&D Core is. Dont fix somethin aint yet broken
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
0.2 The D20
The D20 is another thing we talked a lot on the forum.
Missing to much is not fun for many players.
There are lots of solution to increase our % to hit in D&D, but there’s also often a D20 that could be very unfair.
We have to find a good compromise between the balance of D&D and the D20… and what many don’t want to experience in a video game: missing very often.
Community suggestions :
- An option that could add a +â€x†bonus to every D20, in every situation whatever the check could be something that keep D&D’s balance safe while at the same time would increase our % to hit.
This could be a good way to customize our experience. From a +0 for a more authentic D&D experience to a +5 to increase our overall % to hit by +25% in any situations if needed.
- An option to reduce the ennemy's AC. (EDIT 15/11/20)
- An "auto advantages" after 3 miss. (EDIT 15/11/20)
- Something like "+5% to hit" each time a character miss. (EDIT 15/11/20)
With this mechanics and what is suggested below, we could have many possibilities to increase our control on the game.
This should be totally optional and not a part of the “normal†game mode. Completely against all these suggestions, expecially auto-increse to hit chance after miss (seriously?). Missing is not fun but is part of any D&D game ever released, expecially on early game. Hell, of any percentage-based rpg ever existed. That's why sources of advantage are an important gameplay component: to turn the odds in your favour. What's the point then of flanking, blinding your enemies, bless your party, using the help action. Eventually with all attacks hitting devs will inflate monster HP to prevent monsters from being ganked to death, because attacks can and will carry powerful riders on top of them, like smites or stuns to disable an opponent (and why not, increase spell chances because is not fun to lose a spell slot o special feature because the monster saved). Before we know we are going to spend more time grinding huge health bars with the same amount of resources Im up for a general decrease to monster AC or flat increase to hit chance in an Easy or Story difficult level, but Normal mode should stay as D&D Core is. Dont fix somethin aint yet broken I didn't write it but of course, all these suggestions are meant to be a part of difficulty levels or options. Solasta recently announced that they're going to add an option to enable a "cheated RNG" (+x% to hit each time you miss), but of course D&D is still the basic balance. I mean... Why not ? I'm fine with missing (a lot), but I can understand that some aren't. Advantages are a huge problem in the game at the moment which drastically reduce the replay and the tactical value of the game. As I wrote they should probably stick to D&D about advantages and why not, give players choices to increase our %to hit through something else (i.e +2 attack roll if you're higher or if you "backstab"). D&D have another defensive system called "cover" that increase AC. BG3 could have another offensive system through high ground/backstab/... I'm fine with it, but it should be balanced. Advantages for highground/backstab is not.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 02/12/20 08:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Cover is a very nice feature, like flanking reward tactical gameplay and will definitely work around high ground bonuses (be if flat or advantage). Say a goblin is hiding behind a low wall, half cover means +2 AC. Getting above enough should negate the cover bonus while keeping realitively safe a ranged character I mean... Why not ? I'm fine with missing (a lot), but I can understand that some aren't. then an action rpg may be more suited for those who so vehemently hate missing due to how statistics based rpg works. As a personal experience giving too much flat modifiers to d&d 5e eventually breaks the balance, as this system is NOT designed around abuntand flat increaes to either AC or to hit
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
You're right and I like cover, but it won't happen because it would mean redesign all maps. We have to deal with backstab/high ground alone.
I don't think we have any opinions to give about who should play this game or not. That's Larian's job and it looks like they want to please people that don't like missing too often.
Not sure why a +2 bonus would break D&D's balance, but I'll be glad to hear it.
(That's a suggestion I read a lot on forums from D&D players to replace the balance issues of highground/backstab advantages).
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Not sure why a +2 bonus would break D&D's balance, but I'll be glad to hear it. Read about bounded accuracy online and the difference between 5e and 3.5. Adult Black Dragon has 19 AC in 5e and 27 in 3.5 (Great wyrm in 3.5 has 42 AC and highest AC in 5e is Tarrasque with 25 AC). Single +2 bonus doesn't break anything, but being able to stack more of them does. Stacking is a thing in 3.5e, bounded accuracy is a thing in 5e.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I don't think we have any opinions to give about who should play this game or not. That's Larian's job and it looks like they want to please people that don't like missing too often.
i do however have an opinion about not wanting a system designed around missing and making tactical decisions to improve my odds to be warped for increasing audience. Not sure why a +2 bonus would break D&D's balance, but I'll be glad to hear it. A single +2 is not going to hurt anyone, two of them already push too much the limits of 5e. Here is what bounded accuracy is about in practice and what it means There is a maximum Ability Score of 20, a maximum Difficulty Class of 30, and a maximum Armor Class of 30. There is a maximum Ability bonus of +5 and a maximum Proficiency Bonus of +6 making a maximum total bonus of +11 (resulting in a maximum score of 30 on a roll of 19.)
...
The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character’s increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.
...
This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. If larian wants us to hit more often they should work around baseline bonus: +1 to base proficiency or -1 to all armor/difficulty classes means you will hit more often without breaking progression or even better without reworking all features to avoid godlike scenarios. But again failure is a big part of D&D experience, why someone would get rid of that is beyond the gaming me. EDIT: a 'D&D standard' difficulty can be made without all these modifiers for us tabletop hardliners, while all others can enjoy the 'Normal' setting Larian want to push so hard
Last edited by kasakoff; 03/12/20 04:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2020
|
TBH hitting more often belongs to easier difficulty levels like story and easy. If PCs get +8 (story) and +4 (easy) to all d20 rolls (both combat and dialog) and their spell/ability DC, that should solve the problem easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Dec 2020
|
As a Note, Longswords are Versatile and even list the one-handed and two-handed properties but players can't pick which one. It defaults to two-handed unless a shield is equipped leaving it impossible to dual wield. Bit of a pedantry note, but the pen & paper rules as written do require both weapons involved in 'two-weapon fighting' to have the "Light" property tag, which the longsword doesn't have. Shortsword, scimitars, etc., yes. So that is actually accurate, unfortunately. (p. 195 in the PHB, if you'd like a citation) The only way to get around that is the Dual Wielder feat, which idk if they've implemented? Depending on your interpretation of the Dueling fighting style (and whether it can be used with a shield in the off-hand or it's meant to be Errol Flynn-style sword and flourishy bare hand), it could very much nerf using a longsword with that fighting style, though. So there is still a case for allowing one-handed wielding without a shield, I'm just not sure how you'd flag it so you can't dual-wield unless you had the feat, assuming they put that in. (Separate argument over sticking to RAW vs. common house rules/QoL changes not pictured, though I'm sure it's ongoing in other places on the forums)
Last edited by MsMisinformation; 03/12/20 10:46 PM. Reason: clarity/refinement of point
Experienced lurker. Generally don't say much.
In the venn diagram of BG fans, DOS fans, and 5e fans, I hit all three but lean 5e.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Dec 2020
|
TBH hitting more often belongs to easier difficulty levels like story and easy. If PCs get +8 (story) and +4 (easy) to all d20 rolls (both combat and dialog) and their spell/ability DC, that should solve the problem easily. I think thats the best solution when incorporating a story and easy mode. I got an idea thats may or may not be so good but its a break from the either hit or miss results of combat. Why not have glancing blows or attacks that land but have a penalty to the damage roll. So for example, target enemy has an AC of 16, you have to roll 16 or higher to get a damage roll yes as standard and anything lower than 16 is a "miss". But why not have a pocketed area of... If roll (4 ) under target's AC, so 15 to 13 in this example, attacker still hits and rolls for damage, but is a "glancing blow" and damage roll suffers resistance penalty. So attacker rolls 15 on attack, gets the "glancing blow", rolls damage dice of 6 but only does damage of 3 from resistance penalty. Any character based resistance penalties would also stack. So if defender also had a resistance to the specific attack, it would bring that damage of 3 to 1 (rounding down from 1.5). I like to role-play the term "missing" not so directly as in "you completely missed the target" but much more along the lines of, you rolled too low and really did miss the target, or you didn't roll high enough but did a "glancing blow" or such and such for the name. This makes it so there's atleast a minimal flow to combat. Instead of a hard hit or hard miss. You never know, a few glancing blows maybe all thats needed to turn the tide of battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I have a problem, that whenever I change companions, the new ones aren't grouped and end up, where they were the last time, when out of camp. That is not always a problem, but when you are in the hostile goblin camp and the companions end up in the tea house, there is no way to unite them.
Edit:even when I regroup before leaving camp, this bug happens. In this case it was Astaruon I needed, but that's just not happening. He was last in my group when we were at Ethels and so my main Char and he end up there, while Gale and Shadowheart are back were they should be
Last edited by fylimar; 19/12/20 09:56 PM.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Doctor Who
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
|
I hate to say it, but this will never be a 5e game unless they go back and fix the action economy. More actions is great, but there should be a consequence to your choices and it shouldn't be watered down. Hide, dash, disengage and dodge should be full actions, you make a choice to engage in these knowing you sacrifice your ability to attack or cast a 1 action spell in return. Later you can pick up feats or class abilities that can mitigate the action cost, but often at the cost of a class resource (spell slots, ki, limited times per long/short rest, etc) or using an ASI for a feat like mobility. Actions like grapple and shove are part of the attack action and should be treated as such, if you chose to attack shove should be an option there. If you have multiple attacks you can use one of them to perform a shove (or grapple). Doing so you make a choice, do I want to give up potential weapon damage for gaining advantage on the second attack or simply a chance at pushing the enemy off an edge. Making it a bonus action breaks the game by removing the choice and giving the player the ability to do it all, leading to the shoot and hide from elevation BS style of combat.
After seeing so many comments about Solasta on these forums I decided to check it out. I think Larian has a better story, better characters, and better artwork overall, but Solasta is far better in terms of combat, tactics, and being true to 5e rules. Solasta lacks my favorite classes, the ability to dual class, and so many features that I love about 5e that BG3 has, but I still had much more fun playing Solasta than I had playing BG3 (including some of Solasta's game breaking bugs). Where Solasta adds a custom skin to 5e mechanics to fit the story they are telling, BG3 has made a 5e skin and wrapped it around the Divinity engine and called it 5e (it really isn't). One is fun to play, one is a chore unless you play in a very specific style which trivializes most combats.
Honestly I'm hopeful that Larian pulls it together and makes a wonderful game, because I've already paid for it. However reading a number of the suggestions on how to improve the game have made me more pessimistic on whether this will ever amount to more than a crippled DOS in a 5e wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
Honestly I'm hopeful that Larian pulls it together and makes a wonderful game, because I've already paid for it. However reading a number of the suggestions on how to improve the game have made me more pessimistic on whether this will ever amount to more than a crippled DOS in a 5e wrapper. This is a great point. Can you return Early Access games? This game is so poor, the lack of engagement so obvious, that I honestly want my money back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Honestly I'm hopeful that Larian pulls it together and makes a wonderful game, because I've already paid for it. However reading a number of the suggestions on how to improve the game have made me more pessimistic on whether this will ever amount to more than a crippled DOS in a 5e wrapper. This is a great point. Can you return Early Access games? This game is so poor, the lack of engagement so obvious, that I honestly want my money back. I think it's important for the consumer to know there are risks when buying a game in EA. There are risks when buying a game at full release. I personally don't like returning items just because it didn't meet my expectations. I should have done my research. I return when it is defective. I definitely wouldn't return if I used the product for many weeks. That to me is unethical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
Honestly I'm hopeful that Larian pulls it together and makes a wonderful game, because I've already paid for it. However reading a number of the suggestions on how to improve the game have made me more pessimistic on whether this will ever amount to more than a crippled DOS in a 5e wrapper. This is a great point. Can you return Early Access games? This game is so poor, the lack of engagement so obvious, that I honestly want my money back. I think it's important for the consumer to know there are risks when buying a game in EA. There are risks when buying a game at full release. I personally don't like returning items just because it didn't meet my expectations. I should have done my research. I return when it is defective. I definitely wouldn't return if I used the product for many weeks. That to me is unethical. I agree when it comes to a full game, this is the first time I have bought an EA game, and honestly even with that knowledge, this is a poor showing. This is an Alpha, a tech demo. Party Movement 5e Implementation of Combat Resting and Resourcing Race/Class (I can excuse this, as it is not a complete game.) But worst of all? There should be constant communication. Get a community manager, I dont mean get the Devs on the forums, but get communication going, every day. Ask for focused feedback on these fundamental pain points. I paid full price for an Alpha test. Thats not cool at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I agree when it comes to a full game, this is the first time I have bought an EA game, and honestly even with that knowledge, this is a poor showing. This is an Alpha, a tech demo.
Party Movement
5e Implementation of Combat
Resting and Resourcing
Race/Class (I can excuse this, as it is not a complete game.)
But worst of all?
There should be constant communication. Get a community manager, I dont mean get the Devs on the forums, but get communication going, every day. Ask for focused feedback on these fundamental pain points.
I paid full price for an Alpha test. Thats not cool at all. Oh I agree, this game has not met my expectations. But, it's not an awful game. It's just not what I expected from a D&D game of a sequel to a legendary CRPG. Just hope that due to the holidays, the devs have been silent. Or they are working on a lot of fixes so it will take a lot of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
If there was communication, I wouldnt feel so bad, but I absolutely feel they took advantage of the name Baldurs Gate, and sucked people in.
Full price for this? Shameful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I paid full price for an Alpha test. Thats not cool at all. You did so in full consciousness, in an informed and completely voluntary manner. You have been repeatedly warned about the condition of the product and were fully acquainted with its shortcomings. And now you're complaining about them ... I agree with you, not cool at all.
Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 19/01/21 08:46 AM.
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings.  Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
I paid full price for an Alpha test. Thats not cool at all. You did so in full consciousness, in an informed and completely voluntary manner. You have been repeatedly warned about the condition of the product and were fully acquainted with its shortcomings. And now you're complaining about them ... I agree with you, not cool at all. Only part of that is true. I was aware it was EA. I wasnt aware that the Combat system would be a partial (at best) implementation of 5e. I wasnt aware that the rest system would be a mess. I wasnt aware that the class/race options would be incomplete. I wasnt aware that the movement system was a travesty. I wasnt aware that they are implementing spell balance based on analytics. EDIT: And I wasnt aware, that there was a complete lack of meaningful interaction with the development/design team for what is presumably Early Access, to get that interaction and feedback going. My first time, and most certainly last time, of paying full AAA price for an 'alpha state' EA, I can tell you that much.
Last edited by Scribe; 19/01/21 09:31 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2021
|
It seems, like the Combat-System really is an issue here. Myself, I only found the "Backstabbing" a bit to easy to achieve. But couldn't this be simply fixed by adding "Attack binding" like in PoE1+2? This way, a non-thief could only perform an attack from behind, when another companion already engaged the enemy (and this one only has 1 Attack Bind). Larian should learn more from other TBG like PoE, XCOM or DOS *budumm!* 
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2021
|
3. How are the various miss animations going to make a difference? No matter how good the animations are, you end up missing 5 times in a row.
It's not that it's boring to miss,
but rather that when you repeatedly fail to hit an enemy or die worse for it, it becomes frustrating quickly.
In this case, AC reduction is 100% justified and the fact that some opponents have a little more HP does not have that much impact.
Besides, someone recently put in the calculations that increasing HP and lowering AC does not have a great impact on the speed of the fight
and the only thing that improves the player's better experience by allowing him to hit more often.
Also, if something is in the D&D rules, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to implement it in-game. Again, just because I don’t think you understood completely that this game is not just about martial classes, but casters as well. The calculation of the ac was built over a martial class. Sharing fallacious information just to make your argument stronger is counter productive and dishonest. Actually Maximuuus saved a lot of effort by posting the list of the nerfed spells. I’d suggest to read it again. Google it > read them > understand them. Quite simple recipe. Players don’t like to miss is also an argument that I can’t simply understand. Where have you found this academic paper that people don’t like to miss? I do think that missing is charming and clever and I’m not brave enough to state in this very forum that “people like to missâ€. The way WE feel about certain aspects of the game it’s very personal. I’d advise you to not speak for the others, unless you have statistical evidence. Now, regarding your last phrase: yes you are right. Some features cannot be translated to a video game. Yet, judging by your counter arguments it’s clear that you are not very interested in understanding the mechanics that are being challenged by the community. I can only see someone trying not to hurt Larians feelings You could stop being toxic to anyone who disagrees with you. If the opinions of veterans like Josh Sawyer (if you don't trust Swen) are not enough for you (if you want, I'll look for it later), I don't know what you expect. I can always reverse the argument and ask you how do you know players like to miss? However, this type of discussion does not make sense. Due to the changes in the rest system, the casters are much stronger than normal even after the AC change, and this will get deeper with each level. In a computer game, rest will never be as limited as in PnP, provided you don't give a hard limit, which no one will do. Even in BG2, you could rest after almost every fight (which D&D game had a limited rest?). Not being toxic. Being rational for once. I’ve said that even though I like to miss I don’t speak for the others like you do. Instead of justifying why missing is bad with arguments you simply throw in the air that people don’t like to miss without a good argument. We all do know what are the side effects of the mechanics that Larian built to the game so you can hit more. Have you tried to understand the arguments of the ones who dislike it? I guess not. That’s what I call being toxic Why you didn’t addressed my counter arguments? I guess you can’t I have to agree, I see alot of complaints about Misses during combat...I don't understand the complaint. Is it our ADHD with immediate satisfaction in this modern era? Is it being bombarded with hack&slash "RPG" games? I haven't found Misses slowing me down, or causing undo stress. Only exception was my warlock seemed to miss alot with his eldritch blast. Not sure if the attack roll is DEX or CHA for that. Otherwise I would say the party usually has a 60%+ hit percentage on average, and battles flow and seem challenging...as they should. People miss in fights, in tabletop especially. Your character starts at level 1, and we only have level 4 or 5 right now? How expert and badass do you expect to be at those levels? Lol I think if you want to constantly hit and feel like a god from the get-go, you probably shouldn't be playing a D&D based RPG. Just my opinion
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
It's not even just D&D you will have misses in Fire Emblem and the player base doesn't have an issue with it. I don't see misses as a combat issue, more of a UI/Presentation/Animation issue. [EDIT] I'm always surprised we see complaints about misses but not rolling for 1 damage. [/EDIT] I can understand seeing the word miss be a little mundane, on tabletop the players describe the combat in varying ways. I've started a new playthrough to collect data on dice rolls to see if anything is out of the ordinary and so far I'm not. (so far mostly d20, d10, and d6). I just got through 100 rolls in combat and had around 12 misses (the AC on some of these enemies are so low). I'm going to do a more thorough review after 500 combat rolls. (hopefully before patch 4 comes out). *** I popped in here to add some Youtube videos I found as reference for issues in combat. I debated if I should make videos myself, but I'm grateful most of the issues in combat are shown in these "guides". High Ground, Jump, BackstabDip > SpellsFor me the main issue with combat is these general mechanics all characters can use outshine anything a single class can do (Higher Ground, Backstab, Jump, and Dip). Reactions don't work like we would expect in DnD 5e and saving throw spells are underwhelming after lowering AC and buffing HP for enemies.
Last edited by DragonSnooz; 29/01/21 06:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Why does a game with a combat based on dice rolls still have a PERCENTAGE of hitting chance? And who balanced it? Why 6 attack rolls at 65-80% are SIX LOSSES?
Last edited by Modrawd; 01/02/21 05:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2020
|
Why does a game with a combat based on dice rolls still have a PERCENTAGE of hitting chance? Well I agree. They could even not give any indication in terms of number to reach. And if they had to do so, it could be at least a figure on a d20 (adding the mention DIS or ADV if applicable), with the option to actually roll a dice, as with TTD&D.
Last edited by Lunar Dante; 01/02/21 05:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I understand that they want to reach some kind of compromise, but why not use the experience of other projects, such as nwn\2 and bg2
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Why does a game with a combat based on dice rolls still have a PERCENTAGE of hitting chance? And who balanced it? Why 6 attack rolls at 65-80% are SIX LOSSES? You do realize those percentages come from the actual dice rolls, right? Not all of the rules/mechanics are implemented correctly according to 5e, but those percentages of hitting chance represent the probabilities/statistics of those underlying dice rolls. This part of Larian's 5e rules/mechanics implementation I actually like - better than using https://anydice.com/ or trying to estimate those probabilities... You can see the actual dice rolls in the combat log.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2020
|
Why does a game with a combat based on dice rolls still have a PERCENTAGE of hitting chance? And who balanced it? Why 6 attack rolls at 65-80% are SIX LOSSES? You do realize those percentages come from the actual dice rolls, right? Not all of the rules/mechanics are implemented correctly according to 5e, but those percentages of hitting chance represent the probabilities/statistics of those underlying dice rolls. This part of Larian's 5e rules/mechanics implementation I actually like - better than using https://anydice.com/ or trying to estimate those probabilities... You can see the actual dice rolls in the combat log. When you play TTRPG (which is the proclaimed intention of Larian), you do not say "you have 35% percent chances to hit" IF you say a figure (because you do not have to say it), you say : "You have to roll a 14" (on a d20), (and if you want to do the math, then you precise if you roll is with advantage, disadvantage, or normal)
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Why does a game with a combat based on dice rolls still have a PERCENTAGE of hitting chance? And who balanced it? Why 6 attack rolls at 65-80% are SIX LOSSES? You do realize those percentages come from the actual dice rolls, right? Not all of the rules/mechanics are implemented correctly according to 5e, but those percentages of hitting chance represent the probabilities/statistics of those underlying dice rolls. This part of Larian's 5e rules/mechanics implementation I actually like - better than using https://anydice.com/ or trying to estimate those probabilities... You can see the actual dice rolls in the combat log. When you play TTRPG (which is the proclaimed intention of Larian), you do not say "you have 35% percent chances to hit" IF you say a figure (because you do not have to say it), you say : "You have to roll a 14" (on a d20), (and if you want to do the math, then you precise if you roll is with advantage, disadvantage, or normal) OK, as much as I wish the game was closer to D&D in many ways, this does not bother me at all. Though it shouldn't be hard to implement some sort of toggle (none/dice/%/both) in options - to each his own. While at it, they might as well add another toggle for the dialogue rolls. They exclude/ignore/modify big chunk of the ruleset, but include obnoxious dice rolling in dialogues as a cheap and low-effort way to remind you this is (supposed to be) a D&D game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I’d prefer to see rolls instead of percentages but there may be players who are not familiar with dice. I’d like to see an option for both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
For showing rolls honestly I'd like both percentage and dice roll. When we crit a 20 flashes before us with a camera change. For non-criticals, It would be nice if we could see the dice roll without a camera change.
Examples
As Astarion swings a d20 shows up showing the roll (15)
When Tav fires and Eldritch Blast at advantage, show both d20s (18) (8)
When Gale tosses a spell at disadvantage, show both d20s (19) (2)
When an enemy rolls a spell save DC, please show the dice (14).
etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I don't know if someone asked or not, but:
Will artifacts have full functionality (for example, the Iron Flask)? I understand that they are disbalanced in places, but that's why they are artifacts
Last edited by Modrawd; 03/02/21 10:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
I'd also like to see the rolls but I like the %.
It's easier and faster to read so I'm for both.
Showing the dice allow us to understand why we missed without looking at the log. This help to understand the rules + what happen.
Again, Solasta did it well even if if this "visual" wouldn't suit a game like BG3... But the "concept" is very good and could inspire something.
Last edited by Maximuuus; 03/02/21 09:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2021
|
Couldn't help but notice Hunter's Mark doesn't stack with Colossus Slayer even though Eldritch Blast stacks with Agonizing Blast and Hex. Is this how it's supposed to be per 5e? It makes the Warlock an OP glass cannon: he's always targeted the most because he deals the most damage. Having a formidable Ranger on the field is always great. Also, addition of all basic Ranger favored races and terrain would be great, along with the DN cycle, hunger, and fatigue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2020
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2021
|
Hello)
here are some thoughts and kind of suggestions which were born while i have been playing divinity 2
1) as the plot of the game progresses, the story would be recorded in a coherent story that can be read at any time, for a better understanding of what is happening;
2) a glossary of names and descriptions of the characters you meet and who are somehow mentioned in the quest or plot;
3) active combat log - when you click on a spell that was used by the enemy on me, the icon of this spell and its description will appear;
4) the ability to choose an opponent during a battle and read a description of the effects that affect him, and not just their names of this effects;
5) thievery is like a mini-game with a timer, that is, the character cannot always hang around in other people's pockets and choose a loot, you must act quickly. Timer time would depend on Sneaking ability level.
I will be glad if the developers like some of the proposals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
|
It somewhat does. They just forgot to exclude critical miss from %. By D&D rules If you roll 1, you miss, doesn't matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2021
|
Not being toxic. Being rational for once.
I’ve said that even though I like to miss I don’t speak for the others like you do. Instead of justifying why missing is bad with arguments you simply throw in the air that people don’t like to miss without a good argument. We all do know what are the side effects of the mechanics that Larian built to the game so you can hit more. Have you tried to understand the arguments of the ones who dislike it? I guess not. That’s what I call being toxic
Why you didn’t addressed my counter arguments? I guess you can’t I have to agree, I see alot of complaints about Misses during combat...I don't understand the complaint. Is it our ADHD with immediate satisfaction in this modern era? Is it being bombarded with hack&slash "RPG" games?
I haven't found Misses slowing me down, or causing undo stress. Only exception was my warlock seemed to miss alot with his eldritch blast. Not sure if the attack roll is DEX or CHA for that. Otherwise I would say the party usually has a 60%+ hit percentage on average, and battles flow and seem challenging...as they should.
People miss in fights, in tabletop especially. Your character starts at level 1, and we only have level 4 or 5 right now? How expert and badass do you expect to be at those levels? Lol I think if you want to constantly hit and feel like a god from the get-go, you probably shouldn't be playing a D&D based RPG. Just my opinion Hard agree.
Last edited by Roethen; 05/02/21 05:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2021
|
Hello)
here are some thoughts and kind of suggestions which were born while i have been playing divinity 2
1) as the plot of the game progresses, the story would be recorded in a coherent story that can be read at any time, for a better understanding of what is happening;
2) a glossary of names and descriptions of the characters you meet and who are somehow mentioned in the quest or plot;
3) active combat log - when you click on a spell that was used by the enemy on me, the icon of this spell and its description will appear;
4) the ability to choose an opponent during a battle and read a description of the effects that affect him, and not just their names of this effects;
5) thievery is like a mini-game with a timer, that is, the character cannot always hang around in other people's pockets and choose a loot, you must act quickly. Timer time would depend on Sneaking ability level.
I will be glad if the developers like some of the proposals. Hi, Some of these are already addressed: 1. Press L to open the journal to read short summaries of events. 2. Good point. 3. Spell names are listed on the top of the screen when cast, but could use more obvious visuals. 4. Right click and examine. Hover the mouse over the chosen effect to read a description. 5. NPC's should have to pass a perception check to notice missing loot. Merchants aren't constantly aware of their entire inventory.
Last edited by Roethen; 05/02/21 05:12 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I really hope that the dice-throwing algorithms will be fixed by the release, otherwise it is not playable. Even worse than in one not unknown game about an alien invasion. Only in this game there are absurd mistakes not only by the player but also by the enemy, so that everyone is on equal terms, and in BG it is just a trash when the whole party misses in turn with a probability of hitting 70%. I only have 1 / 4-5 hits on the enemy. (No, I know the mechanics of the game, and NO, I made the maximum possible build to implement the damage), while the enemy only has a 1/4 miss .... I HAVE ARMOR CLASS 20-21 AND ON ME A GOBLIN (armor class 9) HITS WITH A STICK MORE MORE, THAN I ATTACK HIM COMBAT WEAPON
Last edited by Modrawd; 08/02/21 05:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I really hope that the dice-throwing algorithms will be fixed by the release, otherwise it is not playable... in BG it is just a trash when the whole party misses in turn with a probability of hitting 70%. I only have 1 / 4-5 hits on the enemy. (No, I know the mechanics of the game, and NO, I made the maximum possible build to implement the damage), while the enemy only has a 1/4 miss .... I HAVE ARMOR CLASS 20-21 AND ON ME A GOBLIN (armor class 9) HITS WITH A STICK MORE MORE, THAN I ATTACK HIM COMBAT WEAPON This situation comes up in tabletop as well and is frustrating there. That's the nature of RNG. Having the "hit percentages" visible just makes it more frustrating. I'd rather shoot stat-blind based on visual cues like armor, cover and magic protection. I agree that it does seem like there is something off when a 70% chance to hit fails to connect 80% of the time.
Last edited by undermine; 12/02/21 09:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I've started a new playthrough to collect data on dice rolls to see if anything is out of the ordinary and so far I'm not. (so far mostly d20, d10, and d6). I just got through 100 rolls in combat and had around 12 misses (the AC on some of these enemies are so low). I'm going to do a more thorough review after 500 combat rolls. (hopefully before patch 4 comes out). *** I popped in here to add some Youtube videos I found as reference for issues in combat. I debated if I should make videos myself, but I'm grateful most of the issues in combat are shown in these "guides". High Ground, Jump, BackstabDip > SpellsFor me the main issue with combat is these general mechanics all characters can use outshine anything a single class can do (Higher Ground, Backstab, Jump, and Dip). Reactions don't work like we would expect in DnD 5e and saving throw spells are underwhelming after lowering AC and buffing HP for enemies. I like that scientific approach to the broken dice complaint. I don't like that Larian mislabels flanking as backstab. When hosting a game with terms that mean very specific things, one reduces unnecessary confusion by using the proper terms.
Last edited by undermine; 12/02/21 10:13 PM. Reason: Incorrectly credited mislabelling to video OP
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2021
|
When the camera follows an enemy moving around a 2nd floor (or on beams in the ceiling), the floor they're on is invisible, because the player character is downstairs and that floor is kept in focus the whole time. It seems quirky to see them running through the air, and my suggestion is that the game shows the floor relevant to whatever character the camera is focused on. A good example is when fighting DROR RAGZLIN and some enemies are moving up onto the ceiling beams, the beams remain invisible until you move up there yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Just a quick thought from me ...
While playing I found it EXTREMELY frustrating that there were many times that the enemy got to hit me twice for every one time I hit it. I know there were reasons for that to happen, but it was pretty awful. They really need to get rid of that mechanic. I can see a lot of new players just getting so frustrated by that they they leave the game and never return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Nov 2020
|
This situation comes up in tabletop as well and is frustrating there. That's the nature of RNG. Having the "hit percentages" visible just makes it more frustrating. I'd rather shoot stat-blind based on visual cues like armor, cover and magic protection. I agree that it does seem like there is something off when a 70% chance to hit fails to connect 80% of the time. Well... there are only three things that work in this game when you want to acheive anything: Shove, High Ground and Magic Missile. Anything else is pointless. Your Stats don't matter, your weapons don't matter, and most combat spells don't matter since they basically always miss and even in the rare chance when they hit, they deal not enough damage. Utility spells like invisibility or jump do work, though. But the entire feeling of combat has not much to do with D&D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
|
I've started a new playthrough to collect data on dice rolls to see if anything is out of the ordinary and so far I'm not. (so far mostly d20, d10, and d6). I just got through 100 rolls in combat and had around 12 misses (the AC on some of these enemies are so low). I'm going to do a more thorough review after 500 combat rolls. (hopefully before patch 4 comes out). *** I popped in here to add some Youtube videos I found as reference for issues in combat. I debated if I should make videos myself, but I'm grateful most of the issues in combat are shown in these "guides". High Ground, Jump, BackstabDip > SpellsFor me the main issue with combat is these general mechanics all characters can use outshine anything a single class can do (Higher Ground, Backstab, Jump, and Dip). Reactions don't work like we would expect in DnD 5e and saving throw spells are underwhelming after lowering AC and buffing HP for enemies. I like that scientific approach to the broken dice complaint. I don't like that Larian mislabels flanking as backstab. When hosting a game with terms that mean very specific things, one reduces unnecessary confusion by using the proper terms. I posted the findings in this thread. Ratio of RollsI wanted to investigate and see if there were any issues with the RNG. So I recorded all of my player combat rolls on a new playthrough. I had a hunch advantage/disadvantage may be skewing the distribution, so I notated each advantage and disadvantage roll. During the playthrough I tried to get as many normal attack rolls as possible. Here are the findings. For all rolls recorded |Frequency| column; a roll of 17 was further than two standard deviations from the average. The sample from my playthrough looked like rolls may be biased towards the player. - N=176
- St.dev 3.3
- Average 8.8
Note: if one of the 17s had been any other outcome this sample would have been completely normal. After stratifying for normal rolls (Frequency Adv/Dis Removed); all outcomes were normal. - N=117
- St.dev 2.6
- Average 5.85
Advantage and disadvantage are so common in Patch 3.0 that d20 rolls can be skewed for or against the player. Overall, I don't think the RNG is flawed. DataRoll_|Frequency|_(Frequency Adv/Dis removed) 01---------|05|----------(03) 02---------|08|----------(07) 03---------|10|----------(05) 04---------|09|----------(06) 05---------|14|----------(11) 06---------|04|----------(03) 07---------|05|----------(03) 08---------|06|----------(05) 09---------|06|----------(04) 10---------|14|----------(10) 11---------|12|----------(07) 12---------|07|----------(03) 13---------|09|----------(07) 14---------|10|----------(06) 15---------|06|----------(04) 16---------|08|----------(05) 17---------|16|----------(11) 18---------|11|----------(08) 19---------|07|----------(03) 20---------|09|----------(06) EDIT: While I am saying the ratio of rolls isn't flawed. There is still a possible case to be made that pseudo-RNG might be better. On the Nautiloid I started out with a long streak of 5s, 10s, and 17s. A 5 will usually hit on the Nautiloid, so I wasn't bothered. That was a streaky start to the game and I can understand that if a player streaked with 2 instead, that could be an annoying experience. Pseudo RNG that avoids long streaks may be better for the game. Each session, the player only experiences an hour to a four hour window of the game, which will always be a small sample size. It became difficult to push for 500 rolls because advantage/disadvantage is everywhere. The fights in the Underdark are balanced to where you are either going to be level 5 or using backstab/high ground. So it became unfun rather fast trying to collect more data. By the time you're in the Underdark, if Gale isn't using Magic Missile or Shatter repeatedly he's usually missing. As for loaded dice, psuedo RNG is an okay solution. A DM in real life might fudge rolls if the players are streaking with low rolls too much, and a computer DM won't have empathy for the players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2021
|
hi larian i just wanted to say if you would add sneak damage for the off hand for the rogue that would be cool that and disengagement as a free action for the rogue
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Using actual DnD 5th edition rules, complete with correct stats for enemies and having the right abilities and such for classes/subclasses would massively improve combat. =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
|
Something that should be touched on, I think, is player characters/npcs and how they act out of combat.
Currently, once combat starts, everyone involved slows down to turn-by-turn limitations, but everyone else acts normally; this leads to some rather glaring exploits.
For one, you can have one person go and initiate combat and just sit there and never move their turn forward, while having the other three party members go around and do several rounds worth of preparations.
Secondly, warlocks can cast find familiar for free and the familiar can get into combat without dragging the warlock along with it. Flaming Sphere also has its own initiative. Using the Warlock's find familiar ability to summon an imp, and another party member summoning a flaming sphere, the warlock can sit back and spam find familiar; the imp's invisibility ensures that it enters combat only when the warlock wants it to.
Now imagine this: The Warlock summons an imp and gets it real close and has it initiate combat, then the wizard summons a flaming sphere and does the same with it... but does not end the flaming sphere's turn (effectively halting combat). Neither the wizard nor the warlock are in combat. The Warlock's imp runs out of actions, so the warlock summons a new one and rinses/repeats until all the enemies are dead; the enemies never get their own turns, because the warlock is not in combat and keeps adding a new combatant, and the wizard never finishes the flaming sphere's turn.
Even if the wizard did finish the flaming sphere's turn, and combat progressed normally, the warlock would not have to wait for the imp's turn. He could simply summon a new imp and attack.
A way to mitigate that would be to force turn-by-turn limitations globally, even those out of combat. As for how it would work with the initiative order, I'd say that party members out of combat would all act on the same turn as the one who started combat, until they roll initiative themselves, and non-party-non-combatants would act on the same turn as the person with the highest initiative (or would act on a predetermined, never changing, global base initiative like 10 or something).
TL;DR: Global turn-by-turn limitations are needed in order to mitigate spamming of spells/summons, that can act on their own initiative, by out of combat wizards/warlocks.
PS: It is also weird to see the world around the limited characters move normally, while those in combat are all effectively frozen in time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
|
Something that should be touched on, I think, is player characters/npcs and how they act out of combat.
Currently, once combat starts, everyone involved slows down to turn-by-turn limitations, but everyone else acts normally; this leads to some rather glaring exploits.
For one, you can have one person go and initiate combat and just sit there and never move their turn forward, while having the other three party members go around and do several rounds worth of preparations.
Secondly, warlocks can cast find familiar for free and the familiar can get into combat without dragging the warlock along with it. Flaming Sphere also has its own initiative. Using the Warlock's find familiar ability to summon an imp, and another party member summoning a flaming sphere, the warlock can sit back and spam find familiar; the imp's invisibility ensures that it enters combat only when the warlock wants it to.
Now imagine this: The Warlock summons an imp and gets it real close and has it initiate combat, then the wizard summons a flaming sphere and does the same with it... but does not end the flaming sphere's turn (effectively halting combat). Neither the wizard nor the warlock are in combat. The Warlock's imp runs out of actions, so the warlock summons a new one and rinses/repeats until all the enemies are dead; the enemies never get their own turns, because the warlock is not in combat and keeps adding a new combatant, and the wizard never finishes the flaming sphere's turn.
Even if the wizard did finish the flaming sphere's turn, and combat progressed normally, the warlock would not have to wait for the imp's turn. He could simply summon a new imp and attack.
A way to mitigate that would be to force turn-by-turn limitations globally, even those out of combat. As for how it would work with the initiative order, I'd say that party members out of combat would all act on the same turn as the one who started combat, until they roll initiative themselves, and non-party-non-combatants would act on the same turn as the person with the highest initiative (or would act on a predetermined, never changing, global base initiative like 10 or something).
TL;DR: Global turn-by-turn limitations are needed in order to mitigate spamming of spells/summons, that can act on their own initiative, by out of combat wizards/warlocks.
PS: It is also weird to see the world around the limited characters move normally, while those in combat are all effectively frozen in time. You may want to join this thread https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=760775#Post760775
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
|
Heh, well it looks like I was late in my suggestion :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
|
Tooltips for controllers is not good atm. When in combat you cant see what some spells and transformations do. Same goes for char creation. I play on stadia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
|
|
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
|
The following is a familiar story that many have experienced in some form or other. I was playing my Land Druid who was using Flame Blade and Lae'zel was standing next to her, with Tyr's Protection. Both of these spells are concentration spells. A goblin loosed an arrow at my Druid. He missed, but it was a Fire Arrow and both took damage from the fire. Both proceeded to roll badly in their saving throws and lost their concentration spells. From an arrow that missed. A common occurrence in Larian's obstinate fixation on their own homebrews and cheese tactics, you might say.
But losing the concentration spells this way was just so cheap that it was frustrating, so I redid that fight by cheesing harder, such that I took out the goblins before they even had a chance to use their cheesy moves on my party, by using stealth attacks. So I won and should be satisfied, right? But I wasn't. If I don't use cheesy tactics to combat the AI's cheesy tactics, the game gets frustrating. If I do use them, the combat is unrewarding.
I'm afraid that I don't have much in the way of suggestions on what could be done beyond Larian staying more true to DND's rules and only making changes sparingly, and Larian needing to eat humble pie and understanding that their homebrews aren't giving their players as much fun as they think. We don't all like explosions and gimmicks.
Larian needs to completely rethink how combat should be played out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
The word "miss!" should be removed entirely from attacks, except perhaps on a natural 1 to replace "critical miss!" that doesn't really mean anything anyway.
Instead, have the opponent "dodge!", "block!" and "deflect!". And create exciting animations for those.
Instead of the attackers failure, highlight the defenders success. Less feel bad moment for attacker and more feel good for defender.
Also, that would reflect what's actually happening in combat according to the D&D rules. High AC usually means heavily armoured or magically protected instead of attacker being totally incompetent and missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
|
The elephant in the room (in my mind) is the glaring flaws with the cover system and the lack of reaction shots. I think this game could benefit a lot from some XCOM fundamentals. Overwatch, high, and low cover being the most obvious.
The worst part of combat in this game is being forced to move your squad members into the open simply because there's no other way to advance the fight.
Casters should have more "flushing" abilities that can force enemies into the open. If a ranger or rogue ends their turn with significant leftover action/movement points they should be able to elect "overwatch" mode and the opportunity to fire on an enemy leaving cover or entering their field of vision for the first time. Similarly I think their should be a way for melee characters not visible should be able to ambush enemies forced into the range of any left over movement points at turns end.
Maybe the perception stat could formulate the counter/ likelihood of success for the target of said ambush.
I think this would add tremendous opportunities in both gameplay and story. The latter would allow for the party to be ambushed/ forced or caught in the open just as the party could potentially do to enemies taken unawares. Some awesome cinematics could be made to add to the effect. Also it would add entirely new elements of strategy to what Lyrian has already been able to make from turn-based combat.
I think that making changes along these lines could add value to both the ranger and rogue classes with scouting and perhaps some type of "lure" ability. If either class could break with the main party and scout ahead for the enemy while remaining invisible until sighted than designers might allow an extra movement before the scout is forced into combat. This would allow the scout to return to the party with enemies in pursuit. Alternatively you might be able to "signal" the rest of your party and move them into strategic positions around the discovered foe.
Casters I feel, get all the love in these type of RPGs, this could give melee and ranged dps classes an added unique role that they lack in their presently undervalued state.
As you can tell I'm no D&D fanboy. I just like playing great games. The story and lore will always be better in the D&D universe but adding better stealth, cover, reaction shots, and the ability for casters to flush enemies into your waiting party would improve the RPG and combat experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
|
I'm finding the lack of auto save really annoying. It's turned on but rarely triggers.
I'd like to have auto-save at least:
- when you sleep / short-rest
- when you fast-travel
- combat starts / ends
In other games I've seen a list of tick boxes to say which events should cause auto-save.
I often lose in the region of an hour of game play.
Lots of conversations with NPCs, particularly party members, I've done multiple times and I've no idea if I've done them in my live game.
I don't like the system where you have to pick the power of the spells, (e.g. magic missiles has the option of 3 or 4 orbs for a level 1 or 2 spell slot) I find that I forget this and end up using my bow by mistake.
Maybe have separate icons for each level of spell?
I've also attacked my own team mates more than once while I was trying to switch to them.
I'm confused by not being able to see a camera location on the mini-map.
Generally I'm really enjoying it. Good posse of characters and an interesting conflicting world.
I'm very much looking forward to getting to Baldur's gate
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2021
|
As this topic definitely is a part of the combat system (in a way), I just want to highlight it if you want to add it to the overall list Link to OG TopicCouldn't find this topic anywhere, but here goes:
If one your team mates are knocked unconscious during a fight, and that fight directly leads into a conversation you can't avoid, your dear team mate risks dying in the background with no chance to help them.
This has happened to me several times, partly to me miss-clicking my other party members and end up in a conversation with them instead of helping my downed compatriots.
This is just super annoying and leads you to reloading just because you accidently clicked somewhere or the game brought you into a conversation instead of saving your buddy.
Suggestion to fix: "Freeze time" while you're locked in conversation mode (don't know if this would screw up multiplayer etc), but at least don't let party members die while you're clicking through a conversation.
(You wouldn't start that conversation with someone dying next to you, so either wake your party members after a successful fight and someone is still alive, or "freeze them" in time so you have a chance to react to it (don't leave turnbased).
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Shadowheart disapproves whether you betray the tieflings or fight with them. There's no option where she doesn't disapprove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2021
|
I don't like the system where you have to pick the power of the spells, (e.g. magic missiles has the option of 3 or 4 orbs for a level 1 or 2 spell slot) I find that I forget this and end up using my bow by mistake.
Maybe have separate icons for each level of spell?
I've also attacked my own team mates more than once while I was trying to switch to them. Yeah, as much as I can't say that there is any particular issue with how chosing attack type is done I also found myself many times on a verge of doing something completely silly. My issue is with light-shadow and sneaking. Technically it is possible, realisticaly - I haven't seen many situations in which I would be able to sneak up on someone who would be already hostile. Also - those holes in wall or 3 storey long ladders just to provide spot for higher ground don't appeal to me. Sometimes you just have to fight on flat terrain, such is life. Like it's been said many times over - there are other mods that should be exploited. Also it kind of surprises me that there is little to none opportunity for bottlenecking. On the top of that - being lower than enemy shouldn't necessary be dooming you disadvantage - provided you're sufficiently creative and happen to have right spells/items. On RNG - imho for d20 there is just not enough entropy for casual RNG no matter how well designed and offsetting it's local series is necessary. Last but not least - I found myself couple of times in situation where after taking out most of the enemies some of them were lurking past some corners and neither side was willing to give up their advantage - leaving stalemate should be an option, going back to camp doesn't make much sense. Also - enemy after battle should seak advantegous positions or get back to it's previous task (if that makes sense in terms of story) - staying wherever battle ended just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2021
|
Shadowheart disapproves whether you betray the tieflings or fight with them. There's no option where she doesn't disapprove. That's because she's a b**** - kind of reminds me of some people I know who get mad no matter what I do...
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2021
|
First off: I LOVE this game! All the added aspects and interaction of real D&D – bravo! (and the narrator has a waaay nicer voice than my DM – thank you) Can't wait to play the full version.
Some minor comments (sorry if there are repeats - didn't read all the gripes):
I’m no pitcher, but I’m pretty good at getting close to the batter. My PC seems to consistently throw exploding/toxic things at his feet instead of over a wall, cliff, etc. Sometimes the “path is blocked†thing works, sometimes my thief just pitches like Carly Rae Jepsen. Which is ok for Carly, because she sings. Not so great when you are in the middle of a battle and you light yourself on fire.
Also -
Why do the characters all sound like they are taking a dump whenever they climb anything? I mean, they have a 9 ft vertical jump, why would they get a hernia from a ladder? I keep expecting to see my movement speed and stealth reduced and a “Poopy Pants†status pop up.
Speaking of stealth, my rogue has to be the loudest walker ever! He must be from the Dutch-halfling line because he is wearing studded wooden clogs. Maybe tone down the walking noise, especially when in stealth mode?
The other NPCs treat my height disadvantaged halfling like he’s a skunk that just sprayed himself. They constantly look down their nose at him as if they’re not careful, they might step in him. It’s very bad for his self-esteem and he cries himself to sleep every night at camp. Maybe have the cut scene heads move with their eyes?
The leather helmet reminds me of the beanie my mom used to make we wear in kindergarten. The older kids would pull it off my head by the tassels and hit me in the face like it was a soft woolen morning star. Unless, you could use it in battle to whip those leather tassels around to bitch-slap your enemies for -2 charisma.
Last edited by rumblemaker; 07/06/21 06:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2021
|
Since the new update with the inclusion of knocking people unconscious, that should be expanded upon.
For example a rogue specializing in stealth should be able silently choke enemies if they manage to go undetected not alerting enemy allies looking in that direction. Lets say you come upon the initial goblin attack on the druid grove with the 3 adventures begging for the gate to be opened and a rogue silently knocks out some goblins before being found out, would add an interesting dynamic to ways to approach combat and gameplay. It could also segway into being able to imprison and bind the unconscious.
I would also say throwing weapons like shurikens and boomerangs should be an option for Ranger characters who don't want to murder things.
I really felt the non spellcasting classes to be underwhelming or not really flashy enough. With that being said I'd recommend diversifying weapon swinging animations and maybe give the option to customize the types of combat animations your custom character uses. Essentially enabling players to design your characters fighting style from a list of available animations that correspond to certain actions or attacks in certain situations or areas the same way the levels of spells are selected with the pop up box.
Last edited by GratefulyUndead; 16/07/21 04:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2021
|
I've also had major problem with surprise rounds. Earlier tonight I literally jumped into an ongoing combat from stealth, and I was treated as surprised. This has been an ongoing frustration for me, and it really needs to get fixed.
Last edited by JVaske; 17/07/21 02:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
|
I don't like that Shadowheart takes priority in the dialogue after the Illithid dreams and that you don't really get to talk to any of the other characters about it except for Gale after the first major dream. At this point it just makes me want to avoid recruiting her entirely because I want to know what the other characters have to say about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I must say im not sure, since i didnt try yet after patch 5 ...
But i believe you can iniciate your Illithid dream conversation with any companion ... for example, in my last play i believe i iniciated it few times with Wyll. O_o
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2021
|
Right. It used to be that you could talk to all of them about it. After patch 5, when the first dream happens only Gale has something to say about it now. The others act as if nothing happened. After the second dream only that shadowheart has dialogue. Anyway, I dislike it too as I couldn't care less about shadowheart's opinion on, well... anything. I'm tempted to replay with just one companion, see if that forces their dialogue out if neither Gale or shadowheart is recruited.
If this is intended, then I'd say it's a big move in the wrong direction. We already miss out on so much companion input in NPC conversations, because usually only one of them gets to say anything. It seemingly picks at random and overrides the rest. I hate that it tempts me to reload to hear from my favorite companion instead of one of the party members I don't like as much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2021
|
Right. It used to be that you could talk to all of them about it. After patch 5, when the first dream happens only Gale has something to say about it now. The others act as if nothing happened. After the second dream only that shadowheart has dialogue. Anyway, I dislike it too as I couldn't care less about shadowheart's opinion on, well... anything. I'm tempted to replay with just one companion, see if that forces their dialogue out if neither Gale or shadowheart is recruited.
If this is intended, then I'd say it's a big move in the wrong direction. We already miss out on so much companion input in NPC conversations, because usually only one of them gets to say anything. It seemingly picks at random and overrides the rest. I hate that it tempts me to reload to hear from my favorite companion instead of one of the party members I don't like as much. It's now based on higher approval from companions. Since I basically hate/dislike all companions except for Shadowheart I'm doing a run with only her recruited and yes it works, all dreams and some dialogues are now only her dialogues/reactions as expected.
Last edited by Avallonkao; 18/08/21 09:02 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
In general, will the possibility of a romantic relationship with someone other than companions be realized?
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Not sure what do you have in mind ... but it would certainly be nice to have option to have Wife and Kids back in Baldur's Gate. 
I still dont understand why cant we change Race for our hirelings. Lets us play Githyanki as racist as they trully are!
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I mean other NPCs who play a role in the story of the game, but are not companions
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2021
|
In general, will the possibility of a romantic relationship with someone other than companions be realized? Notice that between two characters non origin as companions, it is also not possible ... At this stage, I think unfortunatly 0 %. It would request a lot of scripting and dialogs to be efficient just to get something generic and BG3 is not supposed to replace the Sims. Perhaps a mod would be created by a fantastic modder but I am not optimistic about it.
Dans le doute, frappe ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2021
|
Shadowheart's cutscenes and dialogue seem to take priority over the other companions in most cases.
In the instance of the Illithid dreams you can't get Astarion's nightmare cutscene when she's in your party. You also can't have a cutscene with other characters about going to find the creche or see priestess gut if she's in your party. I have to kill her temporarily to have scenes and dialogue with other companions.
It's really unfortunate because these are revealing/important scenes for the characters. I don't know why you can only access these scenes with one character in your party. It's honestly the most frustrating part of the game for me.
There are instances where a companion other than Shadowheart takes priority, but the result is the same. You're locked out of scenes and dialogue with anyone else.
There are some cases where you can get input and scenes from everyone at camp, but I think it should always be that way.
It's the same with reactions to events while you're traveling. In some scenes, like discovering the book of necromancy, you get comments from everyone. But in most the game chooses one character over the others, and the rest of your companions stay silent as if they have no opinion. I have to separate characters from my party and reload if I want to know what everyone has to say. The scenes where everyone talks are more immersive and pretty seamless/natural to me.
It's just tedious to have to work so hard to know the characters better. And unfortunate that it rarely feels like I'm in a party with a group of people.
The game also chooses one companion with an exclamation point over their head to react to what just happened in your travels. It doesn't let you choose who you want to speak with about it.
People who aren't interested in the characters can always choose not to speak to them. But I really like the characters and hope I don't have to keep doing this to know them better once the game is fully released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2021
|
Really? It's not tied to approval for me at all. I've tested for changes and it's working the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Nov 2021
|
It is NOT based on approval at all. I have very high approval with Astarion and neutral with everyone else (never use any of them) and after 3 times playing through the game I still didn't get nearly half the camp cutscenes with him... it seems everyone is overriding him. It is beyond frustrating that I'm forced to NOT recruit anyone else so that I can see all the scenes with the only companion I'm interested in. I really hope it will get fixed soon. Dragon age implemented it rather well, aside from the cutscenes you also get to hear an input to any important moments in the game from all the companions in the party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2021
|
I can't believe nobody mentioned the Sleep spell yet: it has a duration of 1 minute (or 10 rounds). In the game I'm pretty sure it only lasts two which is a huge waste of a spell slot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2021
|
I'm having a real hard time with combat as of Patch 7, dunno if it's the patch itself or these problems were present all this time. I also can't find posts in regards to some of the issues I'm going to be addressing here.
So I decided to build a full on aggressive-melee party, maximise damage beyond anything else, therefore my choices so far are a dual wielding Barbarian and dual wielding Astarion for the DPR. Here are some issues I've come across specific to these builds and characters and some other more general in nature issues regarding combat.
1) Main problem I came across is that whenever I choose the Attack Action on either character and the Off-Hand Bonus Action attack is available, the Attack Action will utilise the Bonus Action as well. Dunno
why that is and it gets really frustrating not having a clue how to prevent it. I can't have any kind of variety in my attacks and fighting style as the Attack Action will consume my Bonus Action as well,
leading to unnecessary overkills and destroying my action economy.
2) Another interesting-strange interaction with dual wielding is when Astarion reached level 3 and I chose the Thief Archetype to utilise the extra bonus action.So using the Attack Action, Astarion will utilise both his Action and Bonus action, but not the Extra bonus action given by the Sub-Class. Makes no sense.
3) Sneak Attacking with Off-Hand Bonus Action SHOULD BE DOABLE as per the 5e ruleset, but as it seems there's a restriction to Sneak Attack in BG3 for it to work with the main hand only, which is not provided in the description of Sneak Attack in game and I found out by reading it on the Wiki. Might be wrong on that last part but if not... Why is it like that ?
4) Lastly for Sneak Attack it SHOULD WORK on Opportunity Attacks as well. FIX SNEAK ATTACK.
5) Reactions are a mess and don't work properly. Something I encountered last night was during the Gnoll fight outside the cave. Gnolls will provoke OA but for some reason Gnoll 1 passes right infront of the
Barb. NOTHING HAPPENS. Goll 2 provokes OA right after Gnoll 1 did so as well, but BARB TRIGGERS and decides to attack Gnoll 2 instead of 1. How and why does it work like that?
6) Camera angles as of patch 7 are a mess as well. Camera gets stuck in strange positions or zooms in and out for no reason at all when Actions play out.
7) A problem I've encountered in previous patches as well is with spellcasters casting non targeting or AOE Spells. Sometimes, doesn't matter how much I press the left click button to cast the spell, there's something like 70% chances the spell will show its animation casting but the actual spell will never work or it will not just cast itself...
8) Fix Shove-Add grappling and let it work as per the 5e Ruleset. The melee experience is very poor so far.
Last edited by SilentRave; 03/03/22 01:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
1) Main problem I came across is that whenever I choose the Attack Action on either character and the Off-Hand Bonus Action attack is available, the Attack Action will utilise the Bonus Action as well. Dunno
why that is and it gets really frustrating not having a clue how to prevent it. I can't have any kind of variety in my attacks and fighting style as the Attack Action will consume my Bonus Action as well,
leading to unnecessary overkills and destroying my action economy. Look for a small little icon below your equipped weapons (to the left of the hotbar). Clicking that should swap between using both weapons vs only using your main-hand weapon with the Attack Action. (At least, I think so. The icon has changed as of Patch 7). 3) Sneak Attacking with Off-Hand Bonus Action SHOULD BE DOABLE as per the 5e ruleset, but as it seems there's a restriction to Sneak Attack in BG3 for it to work with the main hand only, which is not provided in the description of Sneak Attack in game and I found out by reading it on the Wiki. Might be wrong on that last part but if not... Why is it like that ? +1. Sneak attack should be a toggle that applies on the first successful hit per turn that satisfies sneak attack conditions. Including on opportunity attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Feb 2022
|
It is NOT based on approval at all. I have very high approval with Astarion and neutral with everyone else (never use any of them) and after 3 times playing through the game I still didn't get nearly half the camp cutscenes with him... it seems everyone is overriding him. It is beyond frustrating that I'm forced to NOT recruit anyone else so that I can see all the scenes with the only companion I'm interested in. I really hope it will get fixed soon. Dragon age implemented it rather well, aside from the cutscenes you also get to hear an input to any important moments in the game from all the companions in the party. I also group with only Astarion most of the time because I want to see his reactions the most. Why can't every companion react after the tadpole dreams, after learning of a way to treat the tadpole, etc.? Why must Shadowheart always get priority at camp and why can't more than one companion have a scene per night at camp? People talk about limiting long rests and I don't want them to because I already have to rest too much just to get the other companion scenes over with to get to the ones I want. If I'm not doing that, I'm killing companions or dismissing them and racing to beat them back to camp so I can hopefully see someone else's scene. Which is a tedious and frustrating way just to get Gale's Weave scene to trigger before I've explored too many zones and locked myself out of it. It's like a juggling act where I have to meticulously metagame and not let things unfold naturally as I play, because that would make me miss half the companion content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Nov 2021
|
[quote=SilentRave]1) Main problem I came across is that whenever I choose the Attack Action on either character and the Off-Hand Bonus Action attack is available, the Attack Action will utilise the Bonus Action as well. Dunno
why that is and it gets really frustrating not having a clue how to prevent it. I can't have any kind of variety in my attacks and fighting style as the Attack Action will consume my Bonus Action as well,
leading to unnecessary overkills and destroying my action economy. Look for a small little icon below your equipped weapons (to the left of the hotbar). Clicking that should swap between using both weapons vs only using your main-hand weapon with the Attack Action. (At least, I think so. The icon has changed as of Patch 7). Bruh I found it!!!! Thank you so much!
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2022
|
Tactical RPGs have come along way from a flat 2d landscape with a hit dice and RGB effects or arrow sprite. Of course, they are mostly still revolving around the merits and malus of the character, with some influence from the tool employed (e.g. bow and arrow) and little from the environment, (e.g. a wall if good pathfinding has been programmed).
Therefore to find a new tactical initiative, it would seem we need to examine the characters. The easiest characters to observe are the magical characters, as they have the widest range of abilities, as they are magic ('no der!'). So I suggest some form of team, action point. For example, should your Cleric choose the spell 'hold person', and select it as a team action, for this round it will not be a time/round enduring action, but a single action. A wizard may then choose a 'raise into air spell' and an archer a 'gonad shot!?', once all these selection are made, a play action choice is selected, and the scenario plays out.
Of course the question was to make things more tactical, now this may require some initiatives to be conducted at height, distance or certain rotation from another character or enemy, this will create a basis for encouraging the player to explore his environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2022
|
I was a Drow Rogue with a racial bonus to Dexterity. Rogue has additional bonus to Dexterity. I am sneaking up on an enemy and am going to backstab with my dagger (taking full advantage of my Dexterity bonuses, I thought). Sneak right up behind him and attack (bonus for Rogues) AND I MISS!! Then I die, which causes my whole party to die. In D&D you attack with a 20 sided dice for hit probability (that is hidden in this instance), if you roll a 1 it is an automatic miss, NO bonuses applied, no matter what. Why then even have bonuses? Sound fun to you?
I know you are trying to make BG3 to The Wizards of the Coast (WotC) gaming rules and standards. I get it. Great concept. (Is that because its contractual?) Dungeon Masters have leeway and usually the more they stick to rules and regulations of WotC, the more fun it is. How about asking WotC if it would be OK to change the "to miss" odds (if you please) from 1 in 20 to something like 1 in 40? This could get supper technical if you start fitting in terrain, weather, type of boots/shoes/barefoot, sleep deprivation, carrying weight, sweat getting in characters eyes, etc... Our Dungeon Master would, but I don't think you need to go all the way down that path. Very complicated to incorporate into code.
Thanks for listening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2022
|
Everything is Fine for me in Patch 8, except from the Reaction System. I mean Attacks of opportunity are fine as they are, but the Cutting Words and later on Counterspell cant work as they do now.
They should implement the option to Ask like a pop up for specific spells and leave they rest as they are so the combat doent get annoying!
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Everything is Fine for me in Patch 8, except from the Reaction System. I mean Attacks of opportunity are fine as they are, but the Cutting Words and later on Counterspell cant work as they do now.
They should implement the option to Ask like a pop up for specific spells and leave they rest as they are so the combat doent get annoying! What if they keep the same Reactions system, but you can pause the game at any time, and turn on/off Reactions for any PC in your party? This would allow for the game to flow as it does now, but allow a degree of freedom for players to control when to Reaction on a specific character's turn? The only thing you couldn't do is react to a single character making multiple actions in a turn that could trigger the same Reaction. That seems like a good compromise between their currently implemented Reactions and 5th Ed Reactions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I'm guessing it's not a bug so I'll post it here, turned the gamma down so dark areas actually look go figure dark. Started seeing visual lighting differences when my female halfling faced different directions. You can really tell in starting ship, top level, and putting your character close to a tentacle wall. Holding Ctrl and move your character back and forth and there is light coming from your character in the front, I have no clue why this is like that but ya not a fan of light projecting from front of character that cant see in the dark.
Last edited by fallenj; 10/07/22 07:58 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Aug 2022
|
Great work OP.
It would be great if you can maintain it through the different patches...
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Dec 2016
|
I noticed that in patches 7 or 8 when you create a character with a ponytail similar to Shadow Hearts ponytail yours doesn't move it's rigid AF and looks quite silly even in Close Up animations. There are other little grapes I have like why the hairstyles were changed why couldn't you just add more instead of changing them and the colours are also changed in the hair? Are they going to be more voice choices? Because honestly dwarfs sounding English just sounds weird as heck. Also moving objects with the mouse it can't be done yet in my game at all for some reason before you were supposed to left-click on the object you wanted to move to place it over a trap and that was all fine but unfortunately, because of my disability I have to use a lock click Mouse button and it wasn't working for some reason. And Larian said they were going to address this in the next patch and I think that was two patches ago. I apologize for my shite sentence structure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2022
|
For the reaction system, it seems to me, that
1) Having a passive reaction system like we have now is unpopular, because it is too inflexible. IE you can not choose to only block attacks with the shield spell from strong enemies. The goblin attacks you, you cast shield, your reaction is gone, and the Minotaur attacks. This can be solved with some homebrew (like cutting word now) but that creates its own problems
2) Having an active reaction system like Solasta will slow down the game quite a lot. After EVERY attack of a Paladin, the game will ask you if you want to smite, bards have reaction for attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, basically after EVERY dice roll in the game if you play with a bard, you will have to click away a pop up menu. This allows a high degree of flexibility, but slows down combat and is annoying
My solution:
Bring back slight real time with pause elements (might even make some BG1/2 purists happy). One key (lets say the space bar) is assigned as the "reaction" key.
During any animation, if you click the button, the game stops and a pop up menu with all possible reactions comes up. That means you will not have to select no for smites after every attack, but can choose yourself when you want it, without loosing flexibility as described in 1)
You could then also assign automatic reactions as they are now, with a toggle, if you want to. So if shield is toggled on, every time my wizard is hit, they cast the shield spell.
If shield is not toggled on, if I am attacked, nothing happens, unless I press space during the animation, and then select the shield spell as my reaction (if more than one reactions are available, for example a bards cutting word etc)
This keeps the advantages of both systems, and allows for flexible reactions without homebrew, as they are in the PHB, without making this a pure tactic simulator with hour long combats thanks to pop up menus every three seconds.
Tl;dr:
- introduce a reaction key
- individual reactions can be toggled on, if shield is toggled on, every time my wizard is attacked, they cast shield
- individual reactions can be toggled of, then, only if I press the reaction key during the appropriate animation a pop up menu appears and I can select what I want to do
- keeps the flexibility of the Solasta system without sacrificing the simplicity of the current BG3 reaction system
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2023
|
Allow Camera lock so the same view can follow you as you run.
Bugs for forge not working but i think you know that.
Give an option to abort a conversation on the first dialoge in case you have the wrong person up or realize you need to get something first.
Put in a bag of holding that links to you camp. You can put an item limit but weight won't matter.
Put in a timed save you can set in options
I.e. Save every 5 minutes in save position 2
Let vampire draw on the life of the slug or make his slug vampiric. That would be to cool.
Make it possible to set your fellow members follow distance. THey get in the way when they are to close.
Install an auto follow in the multi=player mode. It would be nice to run to the restroom without stopping the group. You may be useless in a battle but at least you are there.
- Click unfollow at anytime to jump into battle if you were following AFK. Otherwise you don;t attack but are a viable target, That should make it simple enough to implement.
Flag quest update areas on the map better
Show light grey areas for areas you havent been so you can at least tell they exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Feb 2022
|
Back off a vit on npc pussing possibly. Other than that no need.. combats are sooooo easy already. No need to nerd them further, if anything add more Mobs to certain combats. The Devil fight at Helm on nautiloid (if one insists on killing The devil with fire sword), can be a bit tricky. Only other combat that is a slight struggle is Githyanki fight if you do it at lvl 4 or below. I do that on purpose to get challenged. At lvl 5 that one is easy or moderate at best. Havent done Grymforge and The Duergar/Drow in patch 9 yet. Remember those being a challenge at lvl 4 in patch 6 (or was it 7?). But a fun one
"They say he who smelt it dealt it."
Sooo technically... this burnt corpse is your fault officer."
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Mar 2023
|
Shared initiative...
I did a search on the forum and didn't easily find any posts about this...
When playing multiplayer, we should have the option to deactivate shared initiative. Sometimes, when playing with friends, three or four moves at the same time end up getting in the way of gameplay.
I believe that if we could choose whether the game will have individual or shared initiative, it would help a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2023
|
Alright so I just completed my first ever playthrough of the Early Access. I played as a Human Male Cleric of Ilmater and I had a blast. My complaints mostly revolve around aesthetics and some racial options, but even so this is a great game. However there are a few things I would love to see: -Playable Duergar: There are already duergar character models and there is a significant portion of the game where being a duergar could be relevant from a roleplay perspective. For whatever reason I thought that the duergar will be OBVIOUSLY in the game, given how we already have deep gnomes and deep elves, it just seemed like a natural thing, but nope. I really hope you guys will add these bad boys as a playable option, because at this point I need them Playable Aasimar: Given how tieflings are included I feel that it's only fair that their heavenly counterparts should also make an appearance. -Tieflings are too demon-like: This is going to be a really strange one, but I think the problem with tieflings is that they don't look half-human, or even mostly human, they look positively demonic. I think that it might be a more interesting aesthetic choice to represent them as mostly human with a few markers that reveal their extraplanar heritage. As things are right now they basically look like Commander Zhalk without the wings. -Ugly faces in charcter generator: I know this is very subjective but many of the selectable faces in the character generator are just really ugly, especially when it comes to elves and half-elves. Humans are actually fine, and it's rather strange that humans have more pretty faces then elves. -Bodytypes may need a touch of work: I think the baseline bodytype for most races is fine, however halflings in particular stand out as weird... They seem like they don't have their own character model, they are merely shrunk down and distorted versions of the generic human body. I also think it would be a good idea for more body-types to be selectable, although this really isn't a major issue for me. Multiplayer My friend played as a bard and he couldn't give me his bardic inspiration bonus in conversation dye rolls. Event hough he clicked on it, it didn't actually get added to the final result. Another thing I noticed is that if we both started disarming a trap or open a lock at the same time, after he successfully finished the task, my character was frozen and unable to do anything. Luckily we had a save to reload, but that would have been a game ending bug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2022
|
Regarding combat, I have one aspect that I think would be an improvement, which is:
Replace primary and secondary weapon sets with main hand and off-hand with 4 weapon slots to choose from (2-handed weapons consuming 2 slots).
That's all for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
Regarding combat, I have one aspect that I think would be an improvement, which is:
Replace primary and secondary weapon sets with main hand and off-hand with 4 weapon slots to choose from (2-handed weapons consuming 2 slots).
That's all for now. Use of weapon slots like this is something that has been discussed here before, eg at https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=841281.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2023
|
I just wish to state that currently, stealth is completely broken with rogues.
I have cheesed my way through all the difficult content with a bow, and a vampire rogue.
He could sit a mile away up high and kill everyone in the room, without being spotted.
I combat he could just stealth and be unseen no matter where he was, and kill everyone. Just by shooting, rentering stealth and shooting some more.
Major problem with stealth is that the enemy just freezes, and does nothing to counteract my character. They just stand there.
Either they could try to reveal your character with force, light or something else. OR they could simply go all the way over to investigate.
Though most of the time they would not see my character either way, because he always wins on stealth rolls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Mar 2021
|
I don't know what to think about traps. The unlimited duration of the traps in the Abandoned Temple and the Underdark in the very top levels is... insane. If you trigger a trap and it starts to spit fire (with knockdown) it stays on forever. Two stupid fails of natural 1s and it's a party wipe. Hope you managed to have a save point before the traps all triggered.
The one in the Underdark is especially bad, as you permanently get knocked down while taking fire damage and you can't turn it off. And it stays on even past long rests.
Last edited by Arthur Hansen; 24/07/23 09:47 PM. Reason: typos
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2023
|
So shocked that someone else was having problems with the Light as well.
I use cantrip to visually light up rooms, but sometimes the enchanted weapon doesn't light up the room as it should, causing me to acquire a Druid trait just to use Conjure Flame.
I also don't feel a notable downside to not lighting the room during combat.
Just a harmless flower...
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2023
|
I cannot believve how hard it is to read the text on a 4k TV. I just bought BG3 and I'm really excited for it so close to full-release...only to have my eyes bleeding at the character creator! Larian, *please* tell me you are working on UI-scaling for the launch window!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
Okay, I now see the last few posts here aren't relevant to the thread topic and would have been better posted either as separate threads or in other relevant topics. With the close of Early Access and the imminent release (woohoo!) I'm locking this thread so it doesn't keep getting resurrected by posts that should really go elsewhere
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
